- Colin Robinson has a great article in The Nation discussing "The Trouble with Amazon". I've also mentioned this and reflected on it at my own blog.
- Emily Bazelon discusses shifting trends in the training and location of abortion providers, and Paul Griffiths offers some worthwhile thoughts for addressing these trends appropriately.
- A guest post by David Beriss at Savage Minds on the seafood industry, oil, and the environment in the Gulf Coast.
Posts
I await the commentary on the horrors of Pandora next.
ReplyDelete"Anecdotal accounts of strong-arming tactics reveal the extent to which Amazon has created trouble for the sustainability of the book industry."
As such exists today. That's really the deal here - the current publishing industry (just like the current news industry and the music industry) is undergoing at lot of rapid change (most of which was to be expected). That's going to create some winners and losers, and lot of those losers are going to be those who used to dominate in this area. The winners of course will be consumers ... who the winners on the producer side are doesn't really matter.
Anyway, as a more than avid reader of books I love the instant access I have to written page.
I think the hesitations are important - and I think Evan would too - I know he buys from Amazon.
ReplyDeleteThere are two problems with the usual narrative, though.
First - the unique problems associated with the economics of information, which is entirely conformable to the outlook of someone mired in the dismal science. Information isn't like other products - it is virtually costless to reproduce, and, perhaps more importantly in this case, it is a good where you can't know what you're getting until you actually receive the information itself. You can learn what it is your buying when you buy a car without buying the car itself. That's harder with information.
The other point - that should come naturally to the economically minded - is that subjective valuations, particularly of something like information and books, is contingent on your knowledge of its existence. I can't put a value on Austrian economics until it. So the fact that people like suppliers like Amazon doesn't necessarily provide much useful information. It may be the very homogenizing tendancies of Amazon that lead to the observed preferences. Markets can only reveal preferences for things for which there are markets.
The final point is more philosophical, and probably harder for the economically minded to swallow - and that is simply the question of whether value in something like books is at all related subjective preferences of market participants. It may be, it may not be - but it's something worth considering.
Well, you already hear a lot from musical artists how internet is killing sales for them. I'm not sure exactly how Pandora works with record companies and artists, but I do know that personally, I've come across a lot of new artists and bought their work after discovering them on Pandora. And the same goes for discoveries on Amazon. So I'm not sure what you mean by "commentary on the horrors" of either. Presumably you would acknowledge that a critique can be made without employing a narrative of absolute evil and horror, right? Didn't I say clearly enough that I buy from Amazon and will continue to buy from Amazon?
ReplyDeletethe current publishing industry (just like the current news industry and the music industry) is undergoing at lot of rapid change (most of which was to be expected).
Well, sure, but there are still questions about how to shape the future, right? Aren't you concerned about making sure that news is reliable and unswayed by ideological twisting as these major shifts occur? Aren't you concerned that musicians can maintain a living so that they can keep providing us with their art? Isn't the marketability of infotainment, shitty literature, and Lady GaGa a testament to the fact that critical discussions about various cultural markets are worthwhile?
In any case, I'm a consumer myself, dammit. And I'm making a case for doing certain things as a consumer. This came up in older discussions on the blog about local/organic food-- as far as I can see, at the very worst I'm guilty of the sentimentality that Cowen mentions in his 2006 article. But as far as critiques go, this strikes me as pretty harmless. As consumers, are we really supposed to buy according to statistical trends and formulae of market efficiency? Why should we? We can do whatever we want. As you say, "the winners of course will be consumers". What's with the opposition to a little bit of critical reflection on book consumption? What if a "win" for me is the preservation of small bookstores, publishers, and reading communities?
Daniel,
ReplyDelete"First - the unique problems associated with the economics of information, which is entirely conformable to the outlook of someone mired in the dismal science. Information isn't like other products - it is virtually costless to reproduce, and, perhaps more importantly in this case, it is a good where you can't know what you're getting until you actually receive the information itself. You can learn what it is your buying when you buy a car without buying the car itself. That's harder with information."
And if the information is worth having there are price signals to determine that. Information just isn't really all that unique; which is why you still have word of mouth best sellers, cult movies, etc.
"The other point - that should come naturally to the economically minded - is that subjective valuations, particularly of something like information and books, is contingent on your knowledge of its existence. I can't put a value on Austrian economics until it. So the fact that people like suppliers like Amazon doesn't necessarily provide much useful information. It may be the very homogenizing tendancies of Amazon that lead to the observed preferences. Markets can only reveal preferences for things for which there are markets."
I just categorically reject the notion that this is a homogenizing process. I find the notion that somehow Amazon ends the "happy accident" to be just beyond stupid. I'm more than old enough to remember what the world of books looked like before Amazon - and this world is far superior.
"The final point is more philosophical, and probably harder for the economically minded to swallow - and that is simply the question of whether value in something like books is at all related subjective preferences of market participants. It may be, it may not be - but it's something worth considering."
And people should be free to make that determination for themselves. And hey, there's this thing called the internet - and people self-publish scads of material for "free" on it all the time! Everything from free erotica to sci-fi to even glurge stories can be found online ... and there are hundreds of thousands of subscribers to such (indeed, even to podcasts made of fiction and non-fiction works!).
This is all just a bizarro non-issue to me. I remember what the world looked like in the 1970s and 1980s when it came to book buying, etc. and this world is just so much better and there is no reason to think this is going to end.
"And if the information is worth having there are price signals to determine that."
ReplyDeleteThere are price signals, but they work differently for information than they do for other products. We have to keep those differences in mind.
It's like people who say "well if people valued it the private sector would invest in it", as if public goods and private goods are the same thing. They're not - that's largely the point.
Price signals are very important in the market for information, as they are in any market - but there are important caveats.
This is all just a bizarro non-issue to me. I remember what the world looked like in the 1970s and 1980s when it came to book buying, etc. and this world is just so much better and there is no reason to think this is going to end.
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that I'm not advocating some sort of trip back to how things were, right? I mean, you do realize that the small publishers and independent bookstores I'm recommending here make substantial use of the internet and the sorts of technologies that Amazon uses?
I'm never very impressed by misreadings of the sort of critique that I offer as a kind of romantic primitivism. That's not at all what's being suggested.
Evan -
ReplyDeleteI think that was clear in your post, don't worry.
"Aren't you concerned about making sure that news is reliable and unswayed by ideological twisting as these major shifts occur?"
ReplyDeleteNo. I just assume people are ideological and I don't assume that there was some grand period in the past when journalism wasn't ideological.
"Aren't you concerned that musicians can maintain a living so that they can keep providing us with their art?"
Well, the past model certainly didn't do that, did it? Musicians made money from their concerts - not from music CD, etc. sales. So I don't really fear the future from that standpoint. Nor do any of the musicians that I personally know either.
"Isn't the marketability of infotainment, shitty literature, and Lady GaGa a testament to the fact that critical discussions about various cultural markets are worthwhile?"
I don't even know how to respond to this. You are bitching about what people like - about outcomes you don't like rather. That's not my call, and it isn't your call except for what you put in your home, on your computer, etc. Oh, and I happen to like Lady Gaga.
"What if a "win" for me is the preservation of small bookstores, publishers, and reading communities?"
Then support them with your time and money then.
"You do realize that I'm not advocating some sort of trip back to how things were, right?"
ReplyDeleteSure. I just don't really understand this concern that is in the winds over this issue. So I am hey, let's take a step back and go, ahh, hmm, the world is so much better now in this area, so what's the big deal again? Do you get that?
"There are price signals, but they work differently for information than they do for other products. We have to keep those differences in mind."
ReplyDeleteThey seem to work the same for me as for any other product.
"Isn't the marketability of infotainment, shitty literature, and Lady GaGa a testament to the fact that critical discussions about various cultural markets are worthwhile?"
ReplyDeleteI don't even know how to respond to this. You are bitching about what people like - about outcomes you don't like rather. That's not my call, and it isn't your call except for what you put in your home, on your computer, etc. Oh, and I happen to like Lady Gaga.
"What if a "win" for me is the preservation of small bookstores, publishers, and reading communities?"
Then support them with your time and money then.
Your response here, I think, illustrate our disconnect pretty well. I see in your thoughts a tendency to think purely in economic reductions here. Surely I'll buy what I want to and spend my time with it; that's one way that I respond to various options. But another way is by talking about it with other people, isn't it? Isn't that all that I'm doing here? I try to convince you and others to see things the way I do and interact with the world the way that I take to be valuable. Of course you don't have to buy what I'm saying, but that doesn't mean what I'm doing is illegitimate.
If you were trying to convince me of the value of Lady GaGa, you'd tell me about the power of her lyrics or the impressiveness of her stage performance. You might or might not convince me, but this is how normal humans interact in response to stuff about which they care. Jeff Bezos, on the other hand, will put out a press release about why Kindle is fabulous and worth using. And I'll write blog posts about independent bookstores and concerns about Amazon.
We all "happen to like" certain stuff. And we demonstrate that with our wallets. But we also demonstrate that with our rhetoric, and our reasons, and our recommendations.
You are bitching about what people like - about outcomes you don't like rather. That's not my call, and it isn't your call except for what you put in your home, on your computer, etc.
ReplyDeleteLooking at this again. I'm curious on what basis you would establish the idea that it's "not my call"? What makes these personal values so private, in your mind?
On the journalism thing I forgot to mention that stuff just outs itself (and rather quickly): http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/documents-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/
ReplyDeleteAnyway, what this reminds me of is discussion about what the "internet is doing to us." Supposedly it was making for all sorts of closed communities, but it turns out that this apparently isn't the case. People who blog - for example - are generally rather diverse in what news sources they look at. Relying on these sorts of findings I think that these concerns about homogeneity are just overblown.
Anyway, I'm stepping away from blogging for a while ... I've been doing it too much lately and it shows.
People who blog - for example - are generally rather diverse in what news sources they look at. Relying on these sorts of findings I think that these concerns about homogeneity are just overblown.
ReplyDeleteI think you're confusing concerns about homogenization here. Think of it this way... what would a venn diagram look like that charted:
1. people who only bought the same 5 bestselling authors on Amazon
2. People who blog.
...probably not too much overlap.
The concern isn't some vague homogenizing fear with regard to the internet. We're quite aware that the internet also does wonders for democratization of knowledge, diversity, exposure to information, and creativity. This doesn't mean, however, that certain other tendencies are also at work, and it's worthwhile trying to identify these more problematic tendencies when they arise.
"I see in your thoughts a tendency to think purely in economic reductions here."
ReplyDeleteWell, you are wrong there. It isn't merely economics, it is about the ability of the individual to form the social, intellectual, etc. world they want to. Economic transactions are part of that, and would be impossible without them, but they are only part of it. So that is just a shorthand for all of that.
"Looking at this again. I'm curious on what basis you would establish the idea that it's "not my call"? What makes these personal values so private, in your mind?"
Because they are. I'm reminded of a friend in highschool who loved Prince so much he started to dress like Prince. A lot of people thought he was rather odd, but he got a lot of value out of dressing like Prince and the notion I'm going to come along and just pooh-pooh that is problematic to me. People are going to get value and insight and pleasure out of things we just don't understand on their face ... that's the great thing about choice.
"1. people who only bought the same 5 bestselling authors on Amazon"
ReplyDeleteI guess I just don't have a problem with that because those same cohort of people probably wouldn't have bought any books prior to Amazon.com coming into being.
"The concern isn't some vague homogenizing fear with regard to the internet."
I think the concern is rather vague actually. I've never seen it articulated in a manner which makes it seem anything other than a vague fear of new technology.
Anyway, have a nice month or two.
Because they are.
ReplyDeleteWell, yes, I know this is what you think. But what are your reasons for thinking this?
...or is this definitional assertion simply another private preference of yours?
ReplyDeleteEvan,
ReplyDeleteThe nice thing about my view worldview is that I can like Lady Gaga and Harry Potter and "The X-Files" and "Penn & Teller: Bullshit!" and that isn't required of any other particular individual. The libertarian worldview lifts all boats in other words. See ya.
"The nice thing about my view worldview is that I can like Lady Gaga and Harry Potter and "The X-Files" and "Penn & Teller: Bullshit!" and that isn't required of any other particular individual. The libertarian worldview lifts all boats in other words. See ya."
ReplyDeleteI think the point your missing is that there's nothing in the libertarian worldview that requires Evan (if he were to adhere to that worldview) not to think that those preferences are culturally impoverishing or socially undesirable. That's his point, I think. Political libertarianism - and the question of whether anyone will or should interfere with your choices is entirely separate from democratic aesthetics or whatever you might want to call it.
I haven't once read anything where Evan writes that people should be banned from buying certain things. He's simply lamenting the cultural consequences of Amazon (while, I might add, recognizing some of its benefits).
The absolute worst you could accuse Evan of is being a cultural elitist, but I'm not quite sure you could even call him that.
I think this confusion is characteristic of a lot of libertarian perspectives that can confuse normative commentary on an outcome with either (1.) positive understanding of a social process, or (2.) some sort of desire to force an alternative on the public.
You don't have to force your views on others to lament the culture consequences of Amazon. You don't have to think that the market optimizes "culture" to be a libertarian. You're allowed to bemoan things.
Okay, now we're getting somewhere. This is something of a defense of "libertarianism" on the basis of the sort of culture it maintains for those who affirm such a worldview.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm a bit confused... when you say that your preference "isn't required of any other particular individual", are you implying that non-"libertarian" worldviews... where reasons for preference are acknowledged as given and received for the benefit of all... are you implying that under such an understanding, some sort of coercion of individual preference is present? Because I wouldn't say that this is the case.
"I think the point your missing is that there's nothing in the libertarian worldview that requires Evan (if he were to adhere to that worldview) not to think that those preferences are culturally impoverishing or socially undesirable."
ReplyDeleteI think the point you are missing is that there is something really stupid with being really concerned about the reading habits of others. There is really something just bizarre about that sort of thing - as if there are "sins" or "moral problems" or what have you in this arena. You see the same sort of non-sense out of liberals and conservatives when it comes to television (though for differing reasons). This sort of idiocy of course goes back to Plato and his admonitions regarding poetry.
For the libertarian there is very little in the way of right or wrong culture - there's just culture.
"I think this confusion is characteristic of a lot of libertarian perspectives that can confuse normative commentary on an outcome with either (1.) positive understanding of a social process, or (2.) some sort of desire to force an alternative on the public."
Whatever Evan thinks (and I've made no claim at that) ... that's always initially the claim. Then come the attempts at positive legislation ten years later. Across the board this has been the way of things. So it is a narrative I no longer put any sort of credence in.
"You don't have to force your views on others to lament the culture consequences of Amazon."
I think you have to be a very special sort of idiot to turn the plethora of choices people have today into a kind of pathology or moral failing or what have you.
"...are you implying that under such an understanding, some sort of coercion of individual preference is present? Because I wouldn't say that this is the case."
ReplyDeleteThere isn't a single non-libertarian ideology which does not promote some form of censorship, limitation, etc. of what consenting adults do.
"...where reasons for preference are acknowledged as given and received for the benefit of all..."
Not really quite sure what this means.
"I think the point you are missing is that there is something really stupid with being really concerned about the reading habits of others."
ReplyDeleteWhat's stupid about that? What others read has a huge impact on the kind of society we live in. I don't know - how would your approach here allow for things like literary criticism, or any kind of criticism? Evan is asserting there is a standard for good reading, and it's unfortunate if people don't meet that standard. What's so stupid about that? People are free to disagree with that sentiment.
Wasn't it just a couple days ago that you criticized waterzooi's reading habits?
"There is really something just bizarre about that sort of thing - as if there are "sins" or "moral problems" or what have you in this arena."
OK - now you're taking liberties with what Evan said. I agree this type of criticism starts to get problematic. I think Evan would agree with you as well.
"Whatever Evan thinks (and I've made no claim at that) ... that's always initially the claim. Then come the attempts at positive legislation ten years later."
I want to get your argument straight - correct me if I'm wrong. Are you saying that it is fair to criticize anyone that holds literary standards and issues critiques on that basis because their literary standards and criticism is causally tied to state legislation against what they are critical of.
Is that really what you're saying?
Again, I have to ask - does this mean that the whole undertaking of literary criticism is antithetical to libertarianism? I think that's ridiculous. I think you're presenting a version of libertarianism that makes libertarians look ridiculous.
"I think you have to be a very special sort of idiot to turn the plethora of choices people have today into a kind of pathology or moral failing or what have you."
Let me know when you want to cite references to pathology and moral failings, rather than simple assert that we made those points.
*OK, I know for example in that last sentence you never actually say "Evan turns the plethora of choices people have today into a kind of patholoy". If that is your defense, then why do you even bother making a statement like that?
ReplyDeleteAnother thing to point out... Xenophon's points here don't merely reject my commentary as illegitimate (or at least "bizarre"). They also reject all but the most vacuous examples of the music/literature/etc. that each of us consumes! Apart from this sort of reasoned comment and critique, we're left with quite little of culture in the first place, much less the reflection upon culture to which Daniel refers in practices like literary criticism!
ReplyDelete"What others read has a huge impact on the kind of society we live in."
ReplyDeleteOh yes, we're back to this old saw ... let's note that this is the justification for every form of coercion ever committed by man. It is also the justification for of course the censorship of "Lady Chatterly's Lover," of "The Rosy Crucifixion - Sexus, Plexus, Nexus," etc. For the most part (99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the time) the fact that the fact that something has an "impact" on society is absolutely beside the point. Certainly the fact that some people might only buy bestsellers doesn't even come remotely close to those sorts of concerns.
"I don't know - how would your approach here allow for things like literary criticism, or any kind of criticism?"
If people want to spend their time engaging in literary criticism that's no concern of mine.
"Evan is asserting there is a standard for good reading, and it's unfortunate if people don't meet that standard. What's so stupid about that?"
I'm asserting that there is no such standard; which is of course why very few people (besides myself) read Silver Latin works. This is analagous to the descriptivist vs. the prescipritivist debate in linguistics BTW. I find prescriptivism to be rather dim.
"Wasn't it just a couple days ago that you criticized waterzooi's reading habits?"
As a joke.
"OK - now you're taking liberties with what Evan said."
Ok, there is "good reading," but there is no moral or moral like component to that? I've never seen a claim of aesthetic universality that doesn't come with such. Tell me when you discover an instance where that isn't the case.
"Are you saying that it is fair to criticize anyone that holds literary standards and issues critiques on that basis because their literary standards and criticism is causally tied to state legislation against what they are critical of."
I'm suggesting that there is a slippery slope at some point, and one gets on that slope rather quickly (though not immediately).
"I think you're presenting a version of libertarianism that makes libertarians look ridiculous."
I think your confusing mere literary criticism with what I am talking about.
"Let me know when you want to cite references to pathology and moral failings, rather than simple assert that we made those points."
They are reasonable inferences. Again, I can think no single example of a claim of universal aesthetics that doesn't come with some component like that.
Evan,
"They also reject all but the most vacuous examples of the music/literature/etc. that each of us consumes!"
That's just absurd.
It would do you both well to re-read this sentence (it all falls into place after that):
"I think the point you are missing is that there is something really stupid with being really concerned about the reading habits of others."
"If people want to spend their time engaging in literary criticism that's no concern of mine.
ReplyDeleteHA!
It obviously is, Xenophon! That's our whole point!
"Ok, there is "good reading," but there is no moral or moral like component to that? I've never seen a claim of aesthetic universality that doesn't come with such. Tell me when you discover an instance where that isn't the case."
ReplyDeleteI doubt there is such an instance.
You tell me when you come across either Evan or I promoting the idea of aesthetic universality.
Once again, I think your problem is that you're taking an extremist interpretation of what we're saying. I'm not sure why. I suppose it facilitates conflict??? I just don't know.
"I think the point you are missing is that there is something really stupid with being really concerned about the reading habits of others."
ReplyDeleteI'm having the oddest déjà vu here. Something about Cafe Hayak and boorishness.
Also, for what it's worth. I don't think I ever criticized anyone's reading habits. The point was about diversity of reading. The only normative claim I really made, then, was something like a claim that it's better to be widely read than not.
"They are reasonable inferences."
ReplyDeleteWe've told you at several points now that they aren't reasonable inferences.
So is your position that they are still reasonable inferences and we're just being deceptive about what we really think? I don't get you sometimes, Xenophon. It's like you hate the very idea that someone might agree with you on something so you insist they don't and they're saying something crazy and outlandish.
Daniel,
ReplyDelete"It obviously is, Xenophon! That's our whole point!"
Actually, it isn't. Though I do question the value of most literary criticism. Of course we're probably thinking of different things here ... I'm thinking of Frye here and your thinking of something else apparently.
"You tell me when you come across either Evan or I promoting the idea of aesthetic universality."
Evan has done it several times so far in this conversation. You yourself state that Evan makes a claim about what is and is not "good reading."
I don't think I ever criticized anyone's reading habits."
You've done it at least twice here: (1) the comment about the "five books" and (2) the comment regarding "shitty literature."
1) The issue of pursuing a narrow band of bestsellers is why I said, "the point was about diversity of reading". I'm not saying anything about the value of this narrow selection of bestsellers, but rather about the limitations of such a small selection. To be fair, though, I was unclear and realized it as soon as I posted... this is surely criticizing "reading habits". What I meant to say was that I don't think I ever criticized anyone's readings... That is, I didn't say, "Atlas Shrugged is a bad piece of literature".
ReplyDelete2) The comment regarding "shitty literature" was awfully vague, and I don't think really got to the stage of leveling a critique of anyone's work or reading habits.
But yes, merely recognizing "shitty literature" as a possible category proposes some level of aesthetic norms, and I'm not opposed to doing that. Nor am I opposed to arguing that particular books are bad literature. I'm not sure why having reasoned opinions about these things and being willing to engage with others over these reasons is such a bad thing, though, or why it constitutes some sort of coercion. Call it "moral" or whatever else. What's the problem with that? Again, you still seem to be trading in bare assertions and not providing reasons why I might take you to be correct about these things.
But let's be careful not to give up too much to the cultural vandals... there's nothing problematic or illiberal about putting forward an argument that Atlas Shrugged is a bad piece of literature.
ReplyDeleteAha - third paragraph.
ReplyDeleteThe liberal line is always that coercion is the problem, not merely opinion.
There's nothing coercive about calling the literature someone reads "shitty". And you don't have to believe their is universality to asesthetics to make that judgement. Liberalism does not produce unopinionated drones, and anyone thinks that critical stances on anything is somehow tied to coercive acts isn't really well prepared for liberal society.
What's most ironic about this whole exchange is that Xenophon regularly demonstrates his understanding of the value of criticism and standards and discourse. Why he's identified it as such a huge problem in this case is absolutely beyond me.
*there
ReplyDeleteI've never read it myself, but yes, exactly.
ReplyDeleteHell, people should be able to argue that everything Mozart ever composed is utter trash, so long as they have reasons for doing so. Everything can be submitted to critique, and I think it's this very fact that prevents the sort of slippery slope to coercion raised by Xenophon. If nothing in the realm of culture is sacred, then there is no basis upon which to protect it as if it were.
"If nothing in the realm of culture is sacred, then there is no basis upon which to protect it as if it were."
ReplyDeleteBINGO.
Well put.
This conversation was a colossal waste of my time. Xenophon is clearly in the wrong - there is nothing coercive about literary critiques any more than there is insulting someone. An opinion is devoid of coercion.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found mildly amusing was that a lot of this conversation had to do with arguing for/against aesthetic norms, or aesthetic values. I think it's ironic that Evan parenthetically mentions Atlas Shrugged when it was Rand's Objectivist epistemology that deals with universal aesthetics. Wild connection there.
For the record, Atlas Shrugged is a great work of fiction. I enjoy reading it. Of course, my opinion is not universal (although it SHOULD BE!!!).
Can I have my 20 minutes back?
If it wasted 20 minutes of your reading time, imagine how much time of ours was wasted writing it! I sympathize. :)
ReplyDeleteOn Atlas Shrugged, I really honestly have no opinion of it. I've heard that Rand is an atrocious writer and that objectivism is quite a problematic pseudo-philosophy, but I have literally no experience whatsoever with her work (I'm not even sure what aesthetic universalism is, which is why I avoided repeating the term). I only mentioned the book as an example that someone like Xenophon might be familiar with. Similarly, I've never listened to Lady Gaga before.
(1) "I'm not saying anything about the value of this narrow selection of bestsellers, but rather about the limitations of such a small selection."
ReplyDeleteIf you talking about its "limitations" then you are talking about its value.
(2) "I'm not sure why having reasoned opinions about these things and being willing to engage with others over these reasons is such a bad thing, though, or why it constitutes some sort of coercion."
There's nothing wrong with have reasoned opinions on such subjects. But that really isn't what is in question here nor is it what I've contested.
"Everything can be submitted to critique, and I think it's this very fact that prevents the sort of slippery slope to coercion raised by Xenophon."
If that sort of coercion is absent, then why is it so prevalent in the U.S.? I mean, let's not even get into decisions like _FCC vs. Pacifica_. Not to mention the FCC's efforts to crackdown on "fleeting expletives" and the like.
"If nothing in the realm of culture is sacred..."
Sacredness is the realm of awe and devotion and those are of course activities which are quite stifling and repressive. There really is no part of a free society which is sacred.
"I only mentioned the book as an example that someone like Xenophon might be familiar with."
In the realm of literature, I am sure that I am far better read than you are. Oh, and clue one, I've as yet to read a single novel by Ayn Rand.
Mattheus,
"Xenophon is clearly in the wrong - there is nothing coercive about literary critiques any more than there is insulting someone."
I never made that claim. That was a claim attributed to me of course.
"Everything can be submitted to critique, and I think it's this very fact that prevents the sort of slippery slope to coercion raised by Xenophon."
ReplyDeleteIf that sort of coercion is absent, then why is it so prevalent in the U.S.? I mean, let's not even get into decisions like _FCC vs. Pacifica_. Not to mention the FCC's efforts to crackdown on "fleeting expletives" and the like.
Who said coercion of various sorts is absent? I'm not sure why a person's critique of a piece of literature or art has very much to do with the FCC. The point isn't that no such critiques could ever be established forcefully. Rather, the point is that nothing about these sorts of critiques constitutes coercion or should lead a reasonable person to fear coercion.
I think this conversation lost any usefulness long ago. Feel free to continue commenting, Xenophon, but there's a point where it's not helpful to discuss matters with someone who doesn't seem to be willing to dialogue.
Evan,
ReplyDeleteYou stated rather boldly that the sort of critique you offer "prevents the slippery slope." The point of course is that we are already on the slippery slope - and a major reason why that is the case is due to people claiming they have some universal authority about what is and is not "good literature" or what the appropriate set and type of media people should be partaking of, etc.
"Rather, the point is that nothing about these sorts of critiques constitutes coercion or should lead a reasonable person to fear coercion."
As I have stated a couple of times, there is a significant difference between a critique of a work and making moral like claims about the nature of the work and those who read, etc. the work.
"...but there's a point where it's not helpful to discuss matters with someone who doesn't seem to be willing to dialogue."
I agree, but I am not quite yet willing to give up on you yet.
So do you think that in making "moral like claims" here, I'm claiming "universal authority" of the sort that leads to the slippery slope toward coercion?
ReplyDeleteThat just seems absurd. On what basis are you distinguishing my supposedly "moral like claims" from simply "critique of a work"? Where did I cross the line?
The difference is between making claims on artistic work per se, and making claims on those who enjoy artistic work.
ReplyDeleteI think Evan made a little of both, but to be honest, making claims on those who enjoy artistic work is not a bit more "immoral" than making claims on the artwork itself.
If I say that Lady Gaga is trash (example 1) and SO ARE the people who listen to her (example 2), I have made claims on music and the fans who enjoy music. Why is one claim more wrong to make than the other?
That sounds right, Mattheus, although I'm also now realizing that I slipped a bit in my above comment... I think the the boundary I meant to mention was that between moral claim/critique and the "universal authority" that Xenophon is worried about. In that sense, I think you're right that your two examples are on the same level as each other. And what I doubt is that either of them necessarily constitute a claim of some sort of "universal authority". (and if this term is meant to be tied to "aesthetic universalism", perhaps I need some clarification on what this sort of universalism is... as I said above, I'm not familiar with it as Xenophon seems to be using it)
ReplyDeleteAs far as my brief stint in Objectivist philosophy taught me, there is an objective standard for aesthetics, like ethics or logic. It's a notion Nietzsche touches on also.
ReplyDeleteObviously, being an Austrian grounded in subjective theory of value, I think that's batshit insane.
See, I figured it was something like that. What I don't understand is why a subjective critique (i.e., me saying "X is bad literature") becomes for Xenophon liable to this sort of universal, objective standard.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I'm lacking in etiquette or something, but I always just assumed that when folks make statements about stuff, there's usually an implied "I think..." or "I believe...", or "As I see it..." to preface the claim.