John Steppling: Irony is like sen­ti­men­tal­i­ty, a kind of vio­lence to the form, to the nar­ra­tive. And in a sense, these days we prob­a­bly need a new term because irony” is insuf­fi­cient. It is the post-ironic moment. It is very hard in a vocab­u­lary that has been so medi­at­ed and coopt­ed by mar­ket­ing, it is very hard for peo­ple to not be iron­ic, to not be snarky and sar­cas­tic. But this is also an expres­sion of class antag­o­nisms. I think the poor have a very hard time express­ing snark and sar­casm in the same way. Because it turns into some­thing else in their mouth. Pathos, possibly. 

The elim­i­na­tion of the expe­ri­ence of engage­ment with an art­work has you know, contributed—is anoth­er con­tribut­ing fac­tor to art­works as com­modi­ties, some­how. That you are there to pur­chase it and not expe­ri­ence it. You are there to shop for it rather… Rather than to engage in a rela­tion­ship that costs some­thing. I mean, to engage in trag­ic dra­ma costs the view­er some­thing. Presumably the rewards are greater than the cost. 

To engage in the view­ing of The Dark Knight does­n’t cost you anything—it costs you a tick­et. And in a sense this con­tin­u­al­ly is val­i­dat­ed by a crit­i­cal com­mu­ni­ty out there that are real­ly sort of con­sumer advo­cates. Critics today are not crit­ics, they’re review­ers. And they may as well be restau­rant reviewers. 

So, the oth­er end of that, the pre­sumed alter­na­tive to that has been alter­na­tive press or sort of left­ist crit­i­cism or theory—critical the­o­ry. Which increas­ing­ly feels like a fan cul­ture as well. It is… It is sim­ply alter­na­tive shop­ping. And you can go to left­ist pub­li­ca­tions and read favor­able reviews of The Lone Ranger. Of the same authors that The New York Times val­i­dates. If the alter­na­tive press is embrac­ing Rachel Kushner the same way The New York Times is, the same way The New Yorker is, then we have a seam­less sort of hege­mo­ny of crit­i­cal posi­tion and a fur­ther mar­gin­al­iza­tion of rad­i­cal voices. 

The avant-garde dis­ap­peared, prob­a­bly in the mid-twentieth cen­tu­ry. And the loss of this…the tra­di­tion­al notion of the avant-garde, which was there as a social con­science in some way, as polit­i­cal oppo­si­tion, as ques­tion­ing, meant that art was put in the hands of acad­e­mia and cor­po­rate pub­li­ca­tions that treat­ed it as either suc­cess­ful or unsuc­cess­ful com­mod­i­ty. Art stopped ques­tion­ing any­thing. And the idea is… And this is part of the American dis­trust, I think, of art in gen­er­al, is that if it does­n’t pro­vide answers it can’t be worth very much. What is the pur­pose of art if it’s not weigh­ing or mea­sur­ing or pro­vid­ing solu­tions for some­thing? Then it has no role. For the left it was always– Art was sup­posed to be moral instruc­tion, some­how. For the right it was just enter­tain­ment or pro­pa­gan­da. And I sup­pose in a sense it’s become pro­pa­gan­da for both sides. 

There is always a sort of sub­tex­tu­al theme of dom­i­na­tion, some­how. For men there is a great fear of sub­mis­sion, I think. So, there is an aware­ness in the cul­ture of say, lack of com­pas­sion. And it finds its own kitsch expres­sion in these fetishized nar­ra­tives of com­pas­sion. If bul­ly­ing is seen as a prob­lem there will be films and TV shows and PSAs warn­ing of you know, how ter­ri­ble bul­ly­ing is. But they serve the same pur­pose that those old anti-drug ads used to serve, where some­body would scram­ble some eggs and say, This is your brain on drugs.” You know, and every­body who took drugs was like, Where do you get those drugs? Because that’s the point. I want my brain to be scrambled.” 

So it is this false con­science that is imposed on the mas­ter nar­ra­tive. And as I say, the mas­ter nar­ra­tive has all these trib­u­taries that con­tribute to them. And you can’t min­i­mize things like puri­tanism in American cul­ture. I mean, Americans will for­ev­er be puri­tan­i­cal. And the puri­tanism today takes very strange…takes strange shapes, I think, but it is always there. And again, the para­dox is that in a soci­ety that is ever more porno­graph­ic; in which social media is more porno­graph­ic; in which there is an ever more objec­ti­fied depic­tion of sex­u­al­i­ty and so forth, at the same time there is an inten­si­fy­ing of the puri­tan ethos and the notion of punishment. 

Those old— I mean, there used to be these old chest­nuts about you know, if you saw a slash­er film the girl who first had sex in the film was the one who would first get her throat slit. But it was true. And it’s true in oth­er ways when you watch films. Somehow, there has to be a con­sis­ten­cy to char­ac­ter­i­za­tion in which good peo­ple do good things, bad peo­ple do bad things. And the use of the term bad guys.” You know, we’re the good guys, they’re the bad guys. 

So there is a con­stant rein­force­ment of these bina­ry mod­els. But always, always there is the impulse to pun­ish. And the pun­ish­ment is usu­al­ly for trans­gres­sions of a sex­u­al nature. It’s curi­ous. It is a soci­ety in which cul­tur­al prod­uct that does not allow for for­give­ness. It’s a cul­ture that does­n’t even accept apolo­gies of the most basic sort any­more. Characters will say, I’m real­ly sor­ry.” Oh, that’s not good enough. I mean, it’s amaz­ing how often that is repeat­ed. People want… People own their iden­ti­ties as vic­tims, even of the small­est offense. It’s a lifestyle choice. 

There are these mul­ti­ple nar­ra­tives that form a fab­ric that is a sort of mas­ter nar­ra­tive. And in one sense the val­oriz­ing of vio­lence, the rein­forc­ing of vio­lence, can be seen in an obvi­ous ways in things like vio­lent video games and so forth, and the end­less parade of cop shows and so forth. 

I think what is less exam­ined and less talked about are the ways in which these sec­ondary themes, things such as sen­ti­men­tal­i­ty, become embed­ded in this fab­ric. If you look at for exam­ple the kind of end­less police bru­tal­i­ty that exists, the exces­sive force, by this new mil­i­ta­rized domes­tic police force… You know, this is… We are now in the sec­ond or third gen­er­a­tion of a pop­u­la­tion that has been brought up…whose edu­ca­tion is essen­tial­ly the prod­uct of the cul­ture indus­try in some way. 

So if you have these indi­vid­ual police­men exer­cis­ing exces­sive force, it’s seen as per­fect­ly accept­able some­how. I don’t imag­ine these indi­vid­ual police­men go home and reflect on the paint­ings of Francis Bacon or Anselm Kiefer or some­thing. They prob­a­bly… They might go home and have a Thomas Kinkade paint­ing on their wall. They cer­tain­ly watch these end­less roman­tic come­dies, and sit­coms, and dra­mas, and…there’s a whole vari­ety, all of which reflect a spe­cif­ic kind of ide­o­log­i­cal backdrop. 

I think that every­thing is genre today. And the dura­bil­i­ty, the per­sis­tence of crime nar­ra­tive reflects our own psy­chic for­ma­tion. Lacan said our moth­ers can only love us as crim­i­nals. At the same time, those con­ven­tions and a cul­tures’ famil­iar­i­ty with those con­ven­tions has become almost a de fac­to, arche­typ­al, myth­ic form or struc­ture for deep­er, sec­ondary, mimet­ic nar­ra­tives. So that the best work may be com­ing out of genre, rather than what has come to be a very solip­sis­tic, pres­tige set of nar­ra­tives, whether in lit­er­a­ture or film. 

So, I think cul­ture today, with this inces­sant sort of back­ground noise of violence—car crash­es, car­nage, auto­mat­ic gun­fire and so forth—has sev­er­al mean­ings and serve sev­er­al pur­pos­es. There is the cre­ation of these threats. Islamic ter­ror­ists. Black teenagers. Chicano gang mem­bers. Serbs, Russians, Chinese. And there is the mar­ket­ing of this threat. And the audi­ence is told that the only solu­tion to this threat is state vio­lence, and nev­er mind these mushy legal­i­ties like habeas cor­pus and so forth—we don’t need that any­more. So the vio­lence does that. The vio­lence also is a con­stant desen­si­tiz­ing. I mean, it sim­ply is, and it is for chil­dren certainly. 

And it is some kind of mys­ti­fi­ca­tion of suf­fer­ing and death. The mes­sage is always… The mes­sage in super­hero films, and fan­tasies in a sense, is that death can be rec­ti­fied some­how. People come back from the dead, from their death, all the time. 

In police state films, it is part of a cleans­ing of soci­ety. There is equi­lib­ri­um; a threat appears that cre­ates disequi­lib­ri­um; and then the thread is elim­i­nat­ed and equi­lib­ri­um is restored some­how. And this is a very sort of René Girardian idea of scape­goat­ing, in a sense. There are sac­ri­fi­cial victims. 

And in the case of the United States today the sac­ri­fi­cial vic­tims are always the under­class, are always the poor. And it is a giv­en sort of short­hand that black teenagers are inher­ent­ly crim­i­nal. Muslims are inher­ent­ly vio­lent and back­ward. That…somehow, the oth­er is always to be distrusted. 

Now, this also touch­es upon I think a real­ly curi­ous… I don’t want to use the word cri­sis” but a curi­ous moment for Western mas­culin­i­ty. Because we live in an era in which I think white males feel quite threat­ened. And this is one of the para­dox­es in nar­ra­tive today, is that while there is a con­tempt shown for the mass­es, for poor peo­ple, a fear of poor peo­ple, there’s also an eroti­ciz­ing of crime. And the under­class is seen—whether this is overt or con­scious, I don’t know (prob­a­bly some­times it is, prob­a­bly some­times it isn’t)—that the under­class is some­how more authen­tic. More sex­u­al­ly potent. And this is prob­a­bly… These inse­cu­ri­ties and anx­i­eties prob­a­bly dri­ve a lot of what is increas­ing­ly a cul­ture of bul­ly­ing and snitch­ing and shaming…

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.