Skip to main content

Outrage and Civilisation

The West has no monopoly on civilised behaviour, as the new shocking report into the Hillsborough tragedy reveals - where police officers colluded to demean the reputations of the dead (including children) with multiple false allegations; and worse.  However, at least the British PM has made a statement to clear the air, and there have been apologies from newspapers and the police - and criminal charges may still be laid.  On the other hand, the events in Libya on 9/11 the other night are revelatory of a problem that, frankly, liberals in the West usually shy away from - that of barbaric, endemic "street" outrage, usually triggered by "blasphemy".

Again, the West has fundamentalist lunacy at its core - one thinks of Mitt Romney's running mate; or those who burned Beatles albums years ago.  One thinks of the KKK and John Birch Society.  One shudders at intolerance.  Still, there is something deeply wrong with a culture that can encourage, or at least turn a blind eye to, murder of so-called blasphemers.  Blasphemy is a very porous thing.  It is easy to accuse someone of, hard to disprove.  Add to this the fact it seems a trigger for mass rioting and killing, and one faces a social mess.  Nations who continue to allow their citizens to literally run riot, enraged by - sometimes admittedly upsetting behaviour - need to be roundly condemned.  In this context, the idea that Iran is a "rational actor" seems questionable, when religion in the Middle East and Asia is too often a pretext for bloodshed and madness.

The West murdered and pillaged under the banner of Christendom for centuries - it is not spotless.  However, the Enlightenment, and then the post-structural linguistic turn, as well as modernism in the arts, mean that Western society is more ruled by science, reason, and a sense of multiple and provisional "truths"; art is welcome as one part of this story, not as a threat - and, most vitally, freedom of speech is at the heart of our democracies, fragile, suspect and riddled with elitism as they may be.  The death of the US ambassador in Libya is a sad moment.

We must temper our outrage.  We must count to ten, before retaliating.  To this degree, the use of drone attacks by the American army (and the President Obama) are part of the bloody cycle.  It is not that atheists are totally correct, but they hold a grain of truth - religion needs to be constrained by reason - reason that is, arguably, God-given.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".