Journoblog.com

The main theme studied in John Carey’s book is that of the divide between the educated elite, or intelligentsia, and the masses, or newly educated.

To explain the terminology used above, Carey says that before education reforms resulted in widespread literacy, people could very easily be divided into two groups- those were educated, and those who weren’t. The educated could read and write, understood art and music, had knowledge of economy and philosophy. Those who were not classically educated were not educated at all; they could only do manual work and were employed by the elite for their labour.

Once literacy became more common, the common people’s ability to understand the written word represented a threat to their masters. They could continue to educate themselves by reading papers and pamphlets, and exchange their knowledge by writing things down.

This, Carey explains, is the point at which the ‘mob’ became the ‘masses’. They were able to organise themselves into a political force capable of making real changes, and what today’s politicians like to call “social mobility”. The industrial revolution saw the birth of technologies such as large scale publication, long distance travel, high speed delivery, cheap photography and film. All of this and more meant that the growth and  spread of knowledge and skill among the masses was a great deal faster than it would have been otherwise.

Until this time, the elite had been comfortable and confident that their bloodlines and organisations were unassailable from below, and they only needed to concern themselves with the commoners when some odd jobs needed doing. The idea that the masses could someday be their equals, or even overthrow them, was somewhat intimidating. Something needed to be done.

Carey and other likeminded authors assert that the divide between the intellectuals and the masses only continues to exist today because of a devious and calculated effort by those who sit at the table to keep the dogs on the floor where they belong.

One such tactic was to fabricate a very clear line between high culture and mass media. Carey notes that this rise of the masses coincides with the birth of modern art and literature. Professor Carey would tell me that “coincides” is the wrong word, as the modernist movement was specifically designed to keep the masses from encroaching on the intelligentsia’s territory. If we look at modernist books such as Joyce’s Ulysses, we can agree that Joyce’s Freudian, ’stream of consciousness’ style is tricky for even an agile mind to wrap itself around, let alone that of the newly educated.

Similarly, modern art’s departure from accurately depicted landscapes and figures in favour of abstract and experimental imagery required a different kind of thought process to appreciate; the meaning existed in the mind of the viewer as much as it did in the paint of the canvass. Enjoying art ceased to be as simple as enjoying the newly available photography.

Carey would tell us that this kind of shift was a successful attempt to halt the enemy at the gates by ensuring that the high and trendy arts remain out of reach of the masses. I find this rather difficult to swallow: Nietzsche, the father of the Modernist movement, was against being part of any herd, and so it’s difficult to accept that his teachings were the result of some kind of battalion of gentlemen conspiring to protect the integrity of each others’ estates. Similarly, Monet’s spawning of modern art was due to cataracts, not the Illuminati. Or perhaps that’s what they want you to believe…

This is not to say that Carey’s book is to be dismissed with a derisive snort. He accurately notes authors who depicts the common people as ugly, inept and incapable of matching the elite- one example of such literature even describes the ironic death of an average man who tries to  better himself; crushed to death under a pile of the books he was trying to learn from. If modern literature isn’t a mechanism of the intelligentsia, it certainly depicts their feelings if such a group exists.

What is Modernism?

Most agree that the Modernist movement took place between the late 1800s and the early 1900s. It might be described as a period that saw a shift in the way people thought, specifically in shedding their ties to tradition in favour of progress. Up until this time, traditions were held dear and people liked things to stay the way they were.

This meant that culture and science drew their influences from the past- using tradition and religion to guide their efforts. The Modernist movement is characterised by the abandonment of old ideas and breaking established rules, enabling people to free themselves to explore new avenues of thought. Indeed, the success of a an artist or thinker once depended on their ability to demonstrate and refine their chosen craft, the Modernist movement meant that greatness depended on one’s ability to break new ground, think outside the box and work from a clean state. To some extent, this still applies today. Entertainment is still judged through a modernist eye. In music and art particularly, technical ability plays second fiddle to originality.

NIETZSCHE

Nietzsche urged people to take a step further in the development of the species by refusing to accept their animal instincts as insurmountable limitations, thus allowing each person to wipe clean his or her own personal slate. We can interpret Nietzsche’s famous words “God is dead” as a newly unlocked door to the modern world, in which people no longer see religion as their main motivator, or as something to restrict them. He felt that morals aren’t real, that they are ideas simply imposed on us by our parents, church or peers. He encourages people to write their own moral code and be faithful to that code. Nietzsche is telling people to be Modernist and avoid living by the rules of others.

FILM

Earlier in the course, we watched Citizen Kane. Considered to be one of the greatest of all time, largely due to Orson Welles’ experimentation with his cinematography. Like most modernist icons, in order to understand its brilliance we need to know what came before it. Citizen Kane may not amaze us today, because it plays much like other films. But the reason for this is that the majority of films made since Citizen Kane was released in 1941 take their artistic cues from it. Before Kane, films tended to look like stage shows, with wide, straight-on camera angles. Welles used innovations such as low-angle shots and the famous close-up of the reflection in the shattered snow globe.

Kane’s story is told in flashbacks delivered by different people, and through a newsreel. Time is distorted. But these and other storytelling innovations happened decades earlier in literature. In Ulysses, one hour may take place over the course of a few pages, the next hour may take hundreds. James Joyce looks at the world through the eyes of a normal man, an anti-hero. People engage in the idle chatter that is now the trademark of Quentin Tarantino’s films.

MUSIC

Wagner caused upset in the music world when he decided to begin breaking established conventions. He saw his music as art, introducing the concept of “gesamptkunstwerk”, or “total artwork”, where he not only wrote an opera, but took control of dramatic production as well. He rejected use of the “home key”, seeing it as stifling. This is the spirit of Modernism; casting off the shackles of tradition in order to free your creativity.

ART

Art is an excellent way to observe changes in general thinking. Renaissance art, for example, illustrates the new ways in which people viewed things like religion and human figures at the time.

Modern art was born in the late 1800s with artists such as Vincent Van Gogh. But the pace really picked up with the arrival of people like Picasso, Braque and Matisse. Modern art has its roots in Romanticism, as artists worked harder to capture emotion in a raw form. Matisse is a superb example of this.

Art became less about technical ability and more about breaking new ground. It was about using techniques that had never been used before, and about looking at the world in new ways, and deeper introspective thinking.

But as well as breaking the rules of art production, it was about breaking the rules of society and dealing with subjects most would find unacceptable or shocking.

In 1907, Pablo Picasso painted Les Demoiselles d’Avignon. (The Young Ladies of Avignon). Its original title was The Brothel of Avignon but the manager of its first exposition changed the title against Picasso’s wishes in an effort to make it less offensive.

For me, this is the perfect painting to accompany Circe, the 15^th episode in James Joyce’s Ulysses. It is an aggressive depiction of five naked prostitutes, and was highly controversial at the time. The women in the painting have ugly, demonic faces and angular, distorted bodies. Where nudity in art might normally be a thing of beauty or eroticism, this is a dark and nightmarish image.

LITERATURE

A seminal piece of modern literature is Ulysses by James Joyce. Circe is the chapter in which Joyce unleashes himself in terms of consciousness. This chapter is named after a Greek goddess featured in Homer’s Odyssey who used magic potions and drugs. During this chapter, Bloom becomes intoxicated and experiences hallucinations in a brothel. These hallucinations reveal Bloom’s anxieties, his subconscious. Much of this is sexual in nature and childbirth is featured. Freud would approve of this vision of a man’s subconscious. He believes that if you dug deep enough in your mind, all you would find is sex. Circe is like a novelised version of Sigmund Freud’s claims.

What Joyce did was abandon the rules of structure and plot, creating a stream-of-consciousness technique by simply writing as he thought. Sometimes this makes it difficult to decide on whether the words are those of his characters or himself. He abandoned morals, writing something deemed to be obscene at the time so that he could explore the human psyche. He refused to be limited by storytelling conventions, allowing him to demonstrate the randomness of life rather than sticking to the traditional structure and plot threading. He is literature’s Wagner, Picasso, Nietzche and Welles.

Looked at the sky through smoke heavy with human fat and God was not there. The cold, suffocating dark goes on forever, and we are alone. Live our lives, lacking anything better to do. Devise reason later. Born from oblivion, bear children hell-bound as ourselves, go into oblivion. There is nothing else.

Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. It is not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It is us. only us. Streets stank of fire. The void breathed hard on my heart, turning its illusions to ice, shattering them. Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world.

These words were spoken by the anti-hero named Rorschach in Alan Moore’s Watchmen. Published a century after Nietzsche’s Thus Spake Zarathustra, the words demonstrate that Nietzsche’s teachings are still relevant today.

“God is dead”, he wrote in Thus Spake Zarathustra, declaring the end of religion’s influence over man. Before this new push towards secularism, people’s decisions, art and even science were heavily influenced by the word of the Church. Nietzsche’s words were a modernist strike- shedding the established rules of thought in order to make personal and social development a freer process.

Fully accepting an idea like this would require some courage, or at least a certain state of mind. Most people grow up under the influence of a religion that offers them both comfort and a moral code. Of those who regard themselves as being without faith, most still have a clearly defined set of morals (which are usually rooted in religious teachings) such as the divide between good and evil, which they believe are innate.

This is all imaginary, taught Nietzsche. He even called it “slave morality”, a means by which to control people with guilt as the punishment for breaking the rules. He who has the will and the courage to look at the abyss of existence without trying to fill it with gods and comforting ideas, is on the road to becoming Ubermensch, Overman. But without God to give life meaning, we must provide our own meaning to our own lives.

Alan Moore wasn’t the first or last person to echo Nietzsche- in fact, many characters in stories and movies exhibit a Nietzschian philosophy. Protagonists and antagonists alike are often single minded and committed to achieving their personal goals, although it is usually the evildoer who will provide the purest example of Nietzschianism, as they are the ones who are acting according to their own moral code- often seen as “evil” by those who who are, Nietzsche might say, slaves to the values of others.

All overmen would be different, as an overman will live by his own rules, his own morals. He will be a leader, guided by no one but himself and following only his own example. In this way, he will be like a child again, says Nietzsche. Clean your own slate, and have a mind as unencumbered as that of an infant, unaware of the treats of law, religion and guilt, this is the ultimate goal. You might be seen as “bad” by society, but a true overman would not be concerned by this.

Is it possible to achieve this state in modern society? Well that would depend on the moral code you wrote for yourself. But if you were truly uncompromising, you would be likely to end up in trouble with the law soon enough. But if you don’t find it too distasteful to water Nietzsche down a little, then a slightly diluted overman might be a good aspiration.

But then we have an awkward word- “good”. If we accept that good and evil are simply human creations, then how can we say that the state of being an overman is a good or bad thing? Perhaps is Nietzsche had taken another step, he would have felt that attaining this higher state doesn’t matter anyway. The lives and actions of overmen will be forgotten eventually, and without heaven or hell their actions are of no consequence to themselves then their lives come to an end. Any pain they inflict will similarly be forgotten eventually, nothing matters.

Maybe Nietzsche did realise this, perhaps that is why he spend the final years of his life silently staring at a wall.

Buy this book

Tabloid Nation was written by our own course leader, Chris Horrie. The book (which I really must ask him to sign), begins with the inception of the first red-top, the Daily Mirror. The title of the book gives the reader a nudge to consider reading it not just as a story about newspapers, but to also consider an idea: That by documenting content of tabloids over a period of time, and the way in which that content is marketed, one can gain an insight into changes that took place in the attitudes, needs an expectations of their readers. To put it another way, the Mirror offers a reflection of the nation.

An example of this is identifying which groups of people were generally unpopular at a given time; a way to ensure good sales of a paper is to publish a headline that casts a negative light on an unpopular group (incidentally, fascist regimes gain supporters in a similar way). This means that by looking at tabloids printed over the past hundred years, we can see when certain people were unpopular, Gypsies, Jews, Muslims and the unemployed have all had their turn. Whether or not the newspapers were responsible for instigating their unpopularity in the first place will be the subject of mass debate for some time to come.

The Daily Mirror began life in 1903 as a paper written by women, for women. It was a disater, and owner Alfred Harmsworth made his diagnosis of the problem very clear: “Women can’t write and don’t want to read.” But it seems as though the paper was simply ahead of its time; if we look at the colour supplements in Sunday papers, there is almost always a magazine that may be described as “women’s interest”.  In newsagents across Britain, you can see the women’s racks stuffed full of magazines- and it seems there is always room in the market for one more publication.

But from the ashes of  failed Mirror rose the majestic pheonix of the tabloid as we know it today. Most of the defining features of modern red-tops are the result of the broken Mirror’s rebirth under the leadership of the editors that followed, beginning with Hamilton Fyfe. Once the most of the female staff were fired and replaced with new blood, Fyfe began experimenting with methods of increasing circulation.

It was the decision to aim the newspaper at the working class that gave birth to this new beast. As time passed the format developed; the language was simplified, walls of text were replaced with pictures (preferably images of the Royals, the celebrities of the time), and mad comeptitions and giveaways were introduced. A beehive was put on the roof of  their office building to prove that honey could be made in London. Other sweet ideas included the purchase of a doomed pit pony, and the Mirror shouted itself hoarse over its crowning achievement; acquisition of photos of King Edward VII on his deathbed. The pictures were published two days in a row, and the second run resulted in record-breaking sales of over 2,000,000 copies.

Click here for some of the best newspaper headlines ever published!

William Randolph Hearst was one of the most powerful news tycoons the world has ever seen. The circumstances surrounding his rise to greatness were such that we are unlikely to see such a phenomenon again any time soon.

His father was George Hearst, a miner who accumulated millions of dollars in the California Gold Rush in the mid-1840s. During his career, George Hearst acquired a newspaper, the San Francisco Examiner (reports of how exactly he acquired it vary, but I like to think the story about him winning it in a poker game is true), which he later passed on to his son in 1887.

William Randolph Hearst became a newspaperman aged 23. But while it was the wealth of his family that resulted in his ownership of a paper, he could not have taken his news empire to such heights if it weren’t for the time in which he lived.

In addition to the Gold Rush, W.R Hearst’s rise came in the centre of a period of mass emigration to America. The prevention of revolution in Ireland, and the destruction of the nation’s economy, saw floods of Irish people heading to America, along with many Europeans seeking a new life. New York was the gateway to the New World and so became a centre for multiculturalism. Hearst purchased a newspaper in NYC and capitalised on the melting pot in a manner which did much to shape the tabloids we know today. When Hearst decided to conquer Pulitzer’s empire, he created a paper called the Sun. The range of languages spoken along with poor literacy levels meant that in order to sell papers, the language in them was simplified as much as possible  and many large pictures were used, and the paper championed the working class. Comic strips also proved popular, and Hearst purchased ‘The Yellow Kid’ from his rival, Joseph Pulitzer, and placed it among ten pages of ‘the funnies’. The presence of this cartoon in a paper of this type gave birth to the term “Yellow Press”. These changes saw a massive upsurge in circulation.

It must be remembered that newspapers were the only source of news at this time, and so they didn’t have to share their audiences with other media like they do today. Rapid news of any kind was a new thing; the railway boom and the introduction of the telegraph meant that news began to travel fast, information no longer took a week to cross America and people loved it. In addition to this, the victory of the Union in the American Civil War meant that the state was now run on liberal ideas, and so the press could speak more freely.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Communist Manifesto begins with this famous line:

“A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of Communism.”

This is a reference to Hegel’s Geist, which literally means ghost (hence “spectre”), but in Hegel’s world describes the progression of events leading to our reunification with God. Marx wasn’t too keen on religion, so this may be more of a dig towards Hegel than a nod, at least as far as God is concerned. But when it comes to progression, this is one of the core ideas of Marx and Engels. They say that the failure of earlier attempts at political movement is due to the fact that were based on making things the way they once were, rather than looking ahead.

They also cite the world’s fear of Communism as evidence of its significance before giving the readers a history lesson which begins with another big line:

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”

This line, and the chapter that houses it, describes the way in class struggle has shaped the civilised world. The class system is simplified into two groups; the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. According to this manifesto, the bourgeoisie are the owners of land and business, the holders of property. The proletariat are the poor people who work for the bourgeoisie in order to earn enough to survive, making profit for their employers while living on the scraps that fall from the bourgeois table, working harder and in more miserable jobs for smaller wages, wages which are then taken away by “the other portion of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.” Read the rest of this entry »

William Cobbett and Rural Rides

A seminar by Andrew Giddings – delivered on 16/02/2010

The Time

The Napoleonic War which followed the French Revolution presented a great opportunity for Britain. England began paying for mercenaries to fight the war before supplying its own troops, eventually winning at Waterloo. The British Navy had absolute power, and this control of the waterways meant it could blockade French trade, allowing British trade to flourish.

This, largely the trans-Atlantic triangular trading of cotton, slaves and sugar, saw an economic boom. Scotland and Ireland joined with England, forming the United Kingdom. The enclosure policy, along with new technology that came with the Industrial Revolution, drove many of the farm labourers into the towns and cities.  Manchester, the centre of the Industrial Revolution, saw its population explode, in part due to former farm workers seeking employment.

The Corn Laws were brought in to preserve the agricultural industry. It a placed huge import tariff on cheap foreign corn, meaning it was better value to buy British. The Corn Laws were in effect from 1815 to 1846. Rural Rides was written during this period.

The country was corrupted and messy, and the public began to campaign for Parliamentary reform. Cobbett’s support for such campaigns landed him in prison. The Government, afraid of more riots and revolt, eventually brought in the Reform Act in 1832. But while this got rid of some corruption, it was more of a polish than a repair. However, few people could say that Cobbett didn’t make a difference in the long-run. Read the rest of this entry »

The main idea I will be discussing is the rather anti-hobbesian removal of power from government in order to claim freedom for the people. In the days under discussion, the rulers of Europe held a lot more power that they do today, and this is largely due to Liberalism. People like Wilkes and Wollstonecraft and Mill all ran their own campaigns and made progress in their Liberal objective.

I do like the position which Liberalism has placed us in today. I definitely believe that learning about struggles for things such as freedom of the press and women’s rights are worth learning about, as they are often taken for granted today. Most people would agree that they enjoy the freedom they have; if they didn’t have that freedom it wouldn’t matter how many people agreed on anything.

It is worth questioning exactly where the line should be drawn? I don’t believe that the removal of power from the rulers would be likely to work ad extremum. If all power was removed from government, the government would cease to be. Everyone wants freedom, but I doubt that many people would flourish and be happy in a lawless land (more of happiness shortly). Even Rousseau felt that an attempt to fully return to a state of nature would be unsuccessful.  So would it be safe to say that we want quite a lot of freedom, but not too much?

Read the rest of this entry »

Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797) was a pioneer of feminism. One of the main themes of her work, A Vindication of the Rights of Women, was the manner in which women are guided or forced into a subjugated role.

Woolstonecraft avoids blaming any single party for the position of women in society, instead observing several causes one by one. Her finger of accusation points to society and its traditions, to men for perpetuating the behaviour which keeps women from realising their potential, and to women themselves for allowing these things to happen.

She draws a parallel between women and men by stating that just as women allow themselves to be oppressed by men, men allow themselves to be oppressed by their kings and rulers.

Read the rest of this entry »

Wilkes, famed for both ugliness and charm in equal measure, was a journalist and advocate of social liberties. He co-wrote wrote a delightful feminist poem called “Essay on Woman“, which later caused him a few problems.

Wilkes’ life was somewhat colourful: He was forced into exile several times, he was Mayor of London, a Member of Parliament (elected from prison), had countless mistresses and spent a good portion of his life up to his eyes in debt.

If you’re not a Wilkes enthusiast by now, it’s unlikely that he will have earned your favour by the time you’ve finished reading this…

Read the rest of this entry »