I tried to practice and work out some of my keyboard parts yesterday, but I was in crash mode and really couldn't concentrate. I knew the thing to do was relax, but I couldn't figure out how. So I did a pretty weird thing: I went to see that Weather Underground documentary, which was playing at the cinema I pass on my way to pick up the mail in Berkeley.
What a strange, disjunctive experience. In the context of what I've been doing for the past couple of weeks, I mean.
It's a well-made documentary, though it would have been far more interesting (to me) if the film-makers had challenged the WU alumni to do a bit of self-analysis and to examine why such smart, privileged, educated people found it appropriate and ethically unobjectionable to turn to evil and terrorism, and, on occasion, blithely to contemplate and countenance mass murder; and why some of them, as it seems, still cling to shreds of the crazy ideas that they still refer to as "ideals." (I'm referring to self-analysis beyond the "Viet Nam just drove everybody crazy" cliche that is invoked repeatedly throughout the film.) Presumably this was in the interest of neutrality, and there's something to be said for that, too, of course. Yet Todd Gitlin has some appropriately stern and challenging comments, and it would have been interesting if the documentarians had presented them to, say, Bernardine Dohrn as she strolled past her old houseboat safe house in Marin.
There's a hint towards the end that a more confrontational approach might have yielded results, when Mark Rudd tentatively attributes his reluctance to discuss his radical activities in a personal way to his being, to a degree, ashamed of them. And to his having difficulty sorting out which elements he should and should not be ashamed of. It's the barest allusion, but for me it was the most interesting and affecting moment in the film.
Some of these people, though, have no shame. Bernardine Dorhn and Bill Ayers are every bit as loathsome, narcissistic, arrogant and unrepentant on film as in print. In the film's most irritating contrivance, a smug, smirking Ayers strolls down the Chicago street that was the scene of the "Days of Rage" debacle, reminiscing about his glory days with baseball bat in hand. Nice.
Others, like Naomi Jaffe, present a more engaging, tasteful demeanor, yet still seem disinclined to consider, perhaps unable to grasp, the fact that there may be some connection between the theory and practice of random "revolutionary" violence. For Jaffe particularly, urban terrorism seems to be not so much a moral problem as a peripheral accoutrement of a wondrous, self-actualizing opportunity for personal growth; we thought a worldwide, reality-transforming revolution was happening, and we owed it to ourselves to "be a part of it"; and even though we were wrong about the revolution part, we still "got a lot out of the experience." "I'd do it again," she says. "If I didn't have a baby and a family, of course." Self-actualization takes many guises, and whether it inheres to urban terrorism or middle class motherhood is merely a matter of choice and circumstance. Such superficiality, such unreflective solipsism is the very essence of what makes "'60s people" so profoundly irritating to all of us non-'60s people. Most of the ones you meet, however, don't have quite so much explaining to do as these characters.
I'm pretty sure most of the folks in the theatre (around 30, which was a pretty good crowd for a 2pm matinee) found these bromides more persuasive than I did. There's one point where Mark Rudd says that Americans are "taught from an early age" that people who commit random acts of violence against others outside of a "state-sanctioned context" are either criminals or insane. His manner and tone conveyed the fact that he believed this was regrettable and unfortunate, an unjustified mis-attribution the notion of criminality and insanity. And I heard murmers of agreement from the audience. I think I was the only one who said "well, duh!" I hope it wasn't too audible.
Posted by Dr. Frank at August 2, 2003 05:24 PM | TrackBack"Such superficiality, such unreflective solipsism is the very essence of what makes "'60s people" so profoundly irritating to all of us non-'60s people."
Eh? This is not careful. You want 'narcissism' rather than 'solipsism'.
John Barth, Thomas Pynchon --> '60s solipsism.
The Weathermen, Jerry Rubin, Jane Fonda --> '60s narcissism.
There's a difference.
Posted by: spacetoast at August 2, 2003 07:09 PMThere is a difference, to be sure, but sometimes people can be both. Naomi Jaffe's evident belief that the historical and cultural events of the 60s on the international and domestic scene were primarily, and are best seen as, instruments for furthering the greater good of The Self-fulfillment of Naomi Jaffe sure seems like solipsism to me. No?
Posted by: Dr. Frank at August 2, 2003 07:21 PMNo. That's narcissism.
But I realize I'm being an irritant, so I'll shut up. ;-)
Posted by: spacetoast at August 2, 2003 08:08 PMRoger Ebert (who leans pretty far to the left) wrote a pretty bad review of the film. It can be found at www.suntimes.com (click on 'Ebert' on the left).
Posted by: Josh Maxwell at August 2, 2003 11:16 PMI don't have anything useful to say other than that I had to go look up the word "solipsism" and that it's apparently one of those definitions I always wondered if there was a single word for.
Cool!
Posted by: geoff at August 3, 2003 04:27 AMSpacetoast,
I realize this is days late, but I think Frank's on to something here. The key is not to use the strict philosophical definition of solipsism and instead use its more colloquial meaning: "The theory or view that the self is the only reality." It's modified here to mean something more like 'the theory that the self is entitled to a separate and co-equal reality'.
In this context, it's Jaffe's belief that since her theory/explanation/apologia makes sense to her, that it's unimpeachable. This fallacy is often seen in connection with an appeal to 'principles' or 'ideals,' the exculpatory words that these people sincerely believe end any argument over what actually, you know, happened.
This is a particular form of narcissim to be sure, but it's a very specific kind and I think it helps to have a different word for it than garden variety, aren't-I-great narcissism. It's a belief that an individual creates their own moral universe, and that their judgments, by virtue of their 'authenticity,' must be recognized or even valued by the community.
Right...it's not just that the Weatherfolks thought they were so great, but that they conflated their own self-interest with the interest of the world at large, and their own thoughts with reality. "Solipsism" is as good a word for it as any.
You know, when I read that Roger Ebert "leans pretty far to the left," I wonder if I'm, like, the last left-wing MTX fan on Earth or what. I've been into the band since "Making Things With Light," and I'm a flaming Red. Does this make me an oddball now?
Posted by: Jason Toon at August 4, 2003 10:25 PMJason,
Yes, I'm afraid you are an oddball now. I know you're new here, but we all had a referendum on this a few months ago and decided to excommunicate the flaming reds. Hope you like Propagandhi!
Just kidding, of course. I don't want a squashing of dissent charge leveled against me...
Jason,
My stating that Roger Ebert "leans pretty far to the left" was referenced to the political center. I did not mean far to the left of MTX fans or far to the left of me personally. I really have no clue as to the political make up of MTX fans. Perhaps Frank could make an educated guess. Flame on though!
Posted by: Josh Maxwell at August 5, 2003 01:48 AMMarc-
I wasn't thinking so much about dictionary definitions. I'll try to nutshell what I was thinking about...I promise nothing coherent though.
What I think is... '60s counter-culture is in certain respects the first major American popular expression of values or programs...maybe 'meme' would work well here...of what they call the "counter-enlightenment" in philosophy. Two distinct psychological skeins there:
(1) A kind of chosen psychological recidivism that takes self and "self-actualization" as primary values to which, wittingly or not, all other values are relativized or subordinated--I associate this kind of stuff especially with Rousseau and the Romantics... all of the "back to X" type movements would be related to this.
(2) A kind of "aperspectivality" in which traditional or expected boundaries between (on the one hand) subjectivity and (on the other hand) inter-subjectivity and objectivity just dissolve--in philosophy, I associate this kind of stuff with the tradition really beginning with German Idealism's attempt to tackle David Hume and probably terminating in Foucault et al..still the best quintessentially '60s example I can think of is somebody like John Barth (who I dearly love).
So, (1) I associate with 'narcissism' and (2) with 'solipsism'. Reading it, ugh, that's an awful and crude explanation, so take it as I'm just trying to explain the sort of the flavor I was after. On this way of understanding it though, Jaffe's...I'm hesitant to call it a belief...err, "thing" is more appropriately 'narcissism', don't you think? Doesn't 'solipsism' almost already imply *too much* reflection rather than not enough?
Anyway, I shouldn't have started in the first place...hard time resisting the urge to wrangle about terms, and sometimes the distinctions I want are fairly solipsistic...heh! I surrender my original comment then. In the future I'll (try to) stick to effusing about Dr. Frank's records, making fun of his cowboy outfits, and so on... ;-)
No need to restrict your comments based on what some dumb guy thinks. I just think solipsism is useful in describing this particular flavor of narcissism. Perhaps the stumbling block here is the question of volition: does Jaffe intend to sound so narcissistic? Can you be that much of an egoist and still breathe by yourself? I know where you stand on that, but I'm inclined to think Jaffe's worldview was carefully constructed. This sort of worldview doesn't simply spring up from nothing. It's desperately needed to rationalize actions and to create the illusion of a coherent intellectual/moral agenda from the chaos and angst of the WU, SLA, etc.
I like your definitions 1) and 2), and think they're useful here. That said, holding solipsism to #2 relegates it to the ivory ghetto of literature departments, and that'd be a shame. Free 'solipsism'!
Posted by: marc w. at August 5, 2003 05:05 PMMartin Gardner tells this anecdote about a woman who wrote Bertrand Russell to say she had been studying about it and she didn't see any way of refuting solipsism as a philosophical doctrine, and so she wanted to know...in his view...why everyone didn't accept it...
...bah-dum-ching.
I thought that was funny.
Posted by: spacetoast at August 5, 2003 11:52 PM