Intellectuals found themselves aligned, for tactical reasons, to a lot of things that were not, really, their essential pursuits. They were aligned with socialist and communist ideas from the mid-19th century to long after those ideas’ sell-by date. They were aligned with the somewhat stuffy cultural capital projects of the mid-20th cent…
Intellectuals found themselves aligned, for tactical reasons, to a lot of things that were not, really, their essential pursuits. They were aligned with socialist and communist ideas from the mid-19th century to long after those ideas’ sell-by date. They were aligned with the somewhat stuffy cultural capital projects of the mid-20th century. And, maybe more often than they should, they found themselves opposing democratic movements out of a fear of upsetting their own social positions
As a poet with a first collection newly out, I’m trending back to socialism just to get my work into readers’ hands. Capitalism doesn’t support (high) culture, government does so only desultorily, the Church is more or less dead and other religions waver between open hostility (“no graven images” being sometimes interpreted to prohibit painting/sculpting from life, go figure) and indifference. To paraphrase a fifties era commercial that echoes still in my 21st c brain, what’s a poet (or mother/father for that matter) to do?
Thank you for the comment Patricia. Yes, there's something in there that I really agree with and found not articulated very much - that we're in a mixed system, and we're capitalist in some ways and socialist in others. The arts industry is almost completely socialist, with the benefits and demerits of socialism (it's nice to be freed from capital but, on the other hand, 'equality' is very rarely equal and these various committees tend to end up with way too much power).
Wondering what “arts industry” you’re referring to…for sure I don’t consider US poetry/literature in general an integrated “industry,” though some of us subsist on university salaries and universities are perhaps socialistic enterprises.
Intellectuals found themselves aligned, for tactical reasons, to a lot of things that were not, really, their essential pursuits. They were aligned with socialist and communist ideas from the mid-19th century to long after those ideas’ sell-by date. They were aligned with the somewhat stuffy cultural capital projects of the mid-20th century. And, maybe more often than they should, they found themselves opposing democratic movements out of a fear of upsetting their own social positions
As a poet with a first collection newly out, I’m trending back to socialism just to get my work into readers’ hands. Capitalism doesn’t support (high) culture, government does so only desultorily, the Church is more or less dead and other religions waver between open hostility (“no graven images” being sometimes interpreted to prohibit painting/sculpting from life, go figure) and indifference. To paraphrase a fifties era commercial that echoes still in my 21st c brain, what’s a poet (or mother/father for that matter) to do?
Argh, no edit button…the first para above is lifted from Kahn’s fine piece, second is my opinion only.
Thank you for the comment Patricia. Yes, there's something in there that I really agree with and found not articulated very much - that we're in a mixed system, and we're capitalist in some ways and socialist in others. The arts industry is almost completely socialist, with the benefits and demerits of socialism (it's nice to be freed from capital but, on the other hand, 'equality' is very rarely equal and these various committees tend to end up with way too much power).
Wondering what “arts industry” you’re referring to…for sure I don’t consider US poetry/literature in general an integrated “industry,” though some of us subsist on university salaries and universities are perhaps socialistic enterprises.