 Things
are the way they are for a reason, I keep telling myself. There
is a logical, or at least emotional, explanation for everything. If I
read enough Lakoff I can even get my head around how conservatives think, though the
logic still seems perverse. But no matter how much I try, the appeal of
some things eludes me. Maybe you can help me out. Each of the following
ten entries starts with a definition, in case you're even more clued
out than I am about these things. All ten of them are important and
successful parts of our culture, and I don't get it:
Rap music:
"One of the elements of hip
hop; it is a form
of rhyming lyrics spoken rhythmically over musical instruments, with
a musical backdrop of sampling, scratching and mixing by DJs."
Uh, OK. I remember Dylan's Subterranean Homesick Blues and
Guthrie's Alice's Restaurant, which,
except for the scratching, kind of meets the definition. But Dylan, at
least pre-motorcycle accident, was a brilliant writer and satirist, and
Alice's Restaurant was a clever, biting anti-war anthem. I referred you
in an earlier post to these
lyrics by the rap artist 50 Cent. Yes, I know, it's an outlet for
anger, alienation, an in-your-face I'm-not-you voice of rebellion. But
it's sloppy -- thrown
together, inarticulate, and not at all clever, with zero melody, zero
harmony, colossally boring and repetitive rhythms. Shouldn't the
'market' at least be able to turn out rap artists that know more than
three chords and can come up with better rhymes than 'shit' and
'chocolit'?
SUVs:
"Vehicles that combine the
load-hauling and passenger-carrying capacity of a large station
wagon or minivan with features designed for off-road driving". Let me understand this.
These are boxy car/truck hybrids that have none of the safety features
or fuel economy of minivans, have less capacity for freight or
passengers than minivans, aren't fast or sporty, and aren't actually used for off-road driving,
and in fact aren't really designed
for off-road driving (they tip easily). I get the learned
helplessness motivation, but most of the people I see driving these
things don't strike me as insecure drivers looking for extra insurance
in the case of an accident. They think they look cool. And don't get me started on
Hummers.
Procrastination: "To put off doing
something, especially out of habitual carelessness or laziness; to
postpone or delay needlessly." I'm guilty
of doing this a lot, and I have no idea why. I like Douglas Adams'
quote: "I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they
fly by." I rarely miss deadlines, but I cut them too close for comfort.
I don't do this for the thrill. In fact it's agonizing. I know I'm
putting things off, but I just can't help myself. It's perverse. I've
tried everything: The self-reward of doing something in ample time;
keeping lists of things to do with deadlines for each; studying Covey's
Seven Habits. I really like the Discounted Expectancy Theory: A formula that explains why I put myself through this. I don't believe it, but I really like it.
Bush's Charisma:
People I know who have met Dubya face to face say his unpretentiousness
and his self-confidence, and the way he 'carries himself', are
absolutely disarming. Even those who hate his politics say you can't
help admiring him. I don't get this: He swaggers, he thinks he's
smarter than he is, he's one of the most inarticulate people on the
planet. He's a poor liar. He's at least borderline psychopathic,
probably due to a combination of parental neglect and the effect of too
many drugs and too much booze in his youth. I've read
that psychopaths are excellent manipulators, because they're so skilled
at self-delusion -- they really believe they're right, and that's
infectious, compelling. Are we really that easily swayed, that
illogical at forming our opinions of those we meet?
Behaviourism: "An
approach to psychology that claims behavior is the best or most
convenient or only legitimate way of investigating psychological and
mental processes". When I was in university, BF Skinner was all
the rage. His supporters claimed that our behaviours are hard-wired,
that we have no real self-control, and hence aren't really responsible
for what we do. We're just acting out our genetic or learned 'program'.
A generation later along came Richard Dawkins, most of whose work I
greatly admire, but who had this nutty behaviourist idea that our genes
are all acting in their own self-interest, and that ultimately any
organism is merely a temporary agreement, a "throwaway survival
machine" for its individual component actors. Worse, he argued that
life is therefore genetically encoded for savage competition and
ruthless exploitation of others, and that only human beings have the
capacity to overcome this predisposition. To me this is utterly
preposterous, contrary to every instinct and every empirical
observation. But it has ferocious adherents. What drives people to want
to believe that life is savage and constant struggle, and that we are
not responsible for anything but ourselves?
'Professional' Wrestling:
Wrestling is an Olympic sport with a long and distinguished heritage,
but no one makes a living at it. By contrast, people pay $40 for
tickets and even PPV rights to watch so-called 'professional' wrestlers
hit each other with chairs and wrenches, jump on each other from great
heights, and throw each other out of the ring or into hard objects.
It's a huge industry that has made millionaires out of 'wrestlers' and
promoters. What causes bright people to suspend their disbelief and pay
large sums of money for this sham entertainment? What in the world is
its appeal? And is it, as some have suggested, a vivid allegory for
modern Western elections?
Commercial Porn:
Maybe I should have combined this with 'professional' wrestling,
because the mystery of its appeal could be related. Last year I lamented
the lack of good porn, by which I mean erotica that is credible the
same way any good film is credible -- in that it engages you,
transports you, makes you feel for a few moments that you are there, is
at once fun and thoughtful and provocative. And while there are only a
few good models to follow, the most popular 'mainstream' porn is so bad
it is literally unwatchable. It's not even kitsch/killer-tomato bad,
where at least you can laugh at it. It's just bad -- poor plots,
incredibly poor acting, cardboard characters, not even imaginative
settings. The 'actors' are not only as unbelievable as 'professional'
wrestlers, they're mostly old, ugly silicone-filled has-beens. Why
would anyone actually pay money to watch this trash? Where's the 'free'
market which should be producing much better adult entertainment?
Small Talk: "Casual or trivial conversation, chitchat, on unimportant subject, as opposed to serious or weighty ones." Dave Weinberger recently came out in defense of small talk,
arguing that it's a sign of respect, it allows you to learn about
others by hearing the details of their life (giving you some context to
understand them), it avoids the risk of inadvertently offending others,
and to deliberately provide space and ambiguity to build a
relationship. Dave is fine with white lies and non-hurtful gossip, too,
but can't tolerate 'banter', the competitive exercise of cleverness.
I'm with him on all these points, but what I see most often is small
talk that never progresses to anything more. Listen to restaurant
dinnertime conversations, where (unlike lunch) you'd expect people to
know each other reasonably well, and the talk is overwhelmingly so
small it almost disappears. How long does it take to build a foundation
for a relationship to the point you can talk about something important,
something you really care about, something personal? I have a theory
that we now engage in small talk (or its online equivalent, chat) as a
means of deliberately avoiding
talking about anything "serious or weighty", to fill in the spaces in
dead air. The young people I am acquainted with don't know each other
very well. Why not? Are we so much in doubt of our own validity, our
own value, our own ideas and ideals and dreams that we dare not utter
them ever?
Roller Coasters:
I know people who've been all over North America just to visit the
newest, biggest, scariest roller coasters. I've been in airplanes that
have hit air pockets and that's plenty enough sudden falling for me. I
just don't get it. It's not really dangerous. It's not really soaring or flying, an experience that I would
like to experience. Is it the lack of control? Is it just a 'speed'
trip? Is it like the feeling of watching a slasher movie (another
experience I have no appreciation for)? Is it just the release of
screaming? I've tried roller coasters from time to time, especially now
the granddaughters are interested in them, but I still don't understand
the appeal. What am I missing?
'Suffering Women' Films:
These have come a long way from the girl-tied-to-the-railway-track era,
but now most of them are actually written by women. You know the plot:
The husband or boy-friend, initially loving and caring, suddenly turns
out to be an axe-murderer, abuser, adulterer, polygamist etc. The
police and legal system, and many purported friends, are unsympathetic.
Finally, in the last five minutes of the film, after two hours of
unbearable suffering and injustice, the woman takes things into her own
hands and triumphs, usually violently, occasionally with the help of a
new friend, always cleverly, bravely, a victory of unblemished good
over unredeemable evil. The ones written by men always involve
kidnapping of the woman by one or more diabolical men, the insinuation
of torture and abuse, and ultimately rescue by the guns-ablazin'
handsome good guy, in the nick of time and against impossible odds.
What is the appeal of these films to women? Why would women, who surely
face enough struggle and victimization in the real male-dominated
world, want to witness two hours of another woman's suffering? Why are
so few movies made by women about success and joy and companionship,
and so many about seemingly endless adversity?
|
MADE IN CANADA
trust your
instincts 
