HIGHLIGHTS 1: The Blame Woke Crowd; Nobel Prize Refusal, Bezos and Non-Democracy, Evolution Through Art, Fantasy Vice-Chancellor, Arendt on Big Tech

November 6, 2024, Lauren Halsey, Emajendat, Serpentine

THE BLAME WOKE CROWD

"Blaming ​“trans issues” for elite failures is quickly becoming the free space in Bingo of responsibility-evasion. We may look forward to high status Democrats citing trans people to explain away their losses to Barron Trump in the 2048 election. 

"It, of course, wouldn’t be a scapegoat frenzy without immigrants. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews blamed migration and Democrats’ supposed ​“open border” policies for the Democratic Party implosion on Tuesday. Ignoring the fact that this didn’t seem to factor into Democrats’ over-performance in the 2022 midterms when immigration was much higher, and the fact that Democrats have veered hard right on immigration in the past 18 months, Matthews insisted that ​“working people especially” feel ​“betrayed,” and they ​“feel their country has been given away.” Despite polls showing anti-immigrant attitudes distributed evenly, Matthews enjoys speaking on the Working Man’s behalf and wants us to know he can’t be appealed to with Medicare for All or free college or stronger union protections — but only with more anti-migrant demagoguery. . . . 

"That Democrats are bleeding working-class voters from all demographics is indisputable, so a guilty party has to be found. Obviously the solution cannot be a sustained discussion of economic left populism, as this would challenge the class interests of donors and corporate consultants." 

SOURCE: Adam Johnson, "Democratic Elites Blame Everyone But Themselves for Historic Collapse"

LITERARY PRIZE REFUSAL

"When news broke that Korean author Han Kang had won the Nobel Prize in Literature, it sent ripples through the literary world in Korea and internationally. In her home country, writers and proponents of “national literature” hailed it as a triumph for Korean letters. Bookstores saw Han Kang’s works fly off the shelves while publishers rushed to reprint her books, working around the clock to meet the sudden surge in demand. My inbox overflowed with congratulatory messages about Han Kang’s Nobel Prize in Literature—a curious déjà vu of when Bong Joon-ho’s Parasite swept the Academy Awards. Once again, being Korean seemed to make me a proxy recipient of national glory. Friends celebrated with me as though I had personally crafted the lyrical prose that earned the Nobel committee’s recognition, much like they had when Parasite made Oscar history. ...

"In an incisive 2013 blog post, Ursula Le Guin revisited Sartre’s historic Nobel Prize rejection through a contemporary lens, introducing the idea of the “Sartre Prize for Prize Refusal.” Le Guin created a satirical framework that honored principled rejection and critiqued the commercialization of literary achievement.3 Le Guin recounted a lineage of principled prize rejection, connecting Sartre’s foundational act to contemporary examples. Her discussion of Lawrence Ferlinghetti’s refusal of the Hungarian PEN award demonstrated how prize rejection continues to serve as a form of political protest. Ferlinghetti’s suggestion that the prize money be redirected to support Hungarian writers advocating for free speech exemplified how rejection can be not merely negative but constructively political.

 

"Le Guin’s account of her own experience refusing the Nebula Award provides an example of how prize rejection operates in practice. Her protest against the Science Fiction Writers of America’s exclusion of Stanisław Lem revealed the intricate relationship between literary recognition and Cold War politics. This personal narrative illuminates how individual acts of refusal can challenge institutional prejudices and political orthodoxies. The ironic twist in Le Guin’s case—that her rejected award went to Isaac Asimov, “the old chieftain of the Cold Warriors” in her terms—serves as a perfect metaphor for the complexities of literary politics. This outcome demonstrates that even principled stances can have unintended consequences, yet this does not diminish the importance of taking such stands."

SOURCE: The Paradox of the Nobel Prize in Literature, BY Alex Taek-Gwang Lee

BEZOS, TRUMP, AND THE FAILURE OF DEMOCRACY

"When Bezos decreed that the newspaper he owned could not endorse Trump’s opponent, it was a transparent act of submission borne of an intuitive understanding of the differences between the candidates.

"Bezos understood that if he antagonized Kamala Harris and Harris became president, he would face no consequences. A Harris administration would not target his businesses because the Harris administration would—like all presidential administrations not headed by Trump—adhere to the rule of law.

"Bezos likewise understood that the inverse was not true. If he continued to antagonize Trump and Trump became president, his businesses very much would be targeted.

"So bending the knee to Trump was the smart play. All upside, no downside.

"What Trump understood was that Bezos’s submission would be of limited use if it was kept quiet. Because the point of dominating Bezos wasn’t just to dominate Bezos. It was to send a message to every other businessman, entrepreneur, and corporation in America: that these are the rules of the game. If you are nice to Trump, the government will be nice to you. If you criticize Trump, the government will be used against you.

"Which is why Trump met with Blue Origin on the same day that Bezos yielded. It was a demonstration—a very public demonstration."

SOURCE: Jonathan V. Last, The Bulwark

WHEN ART EVOLVES, WE EVOLVE

 

"Williamsburg stands as a rebuke to the way corporate control of real estate and artistic commerce incentivizes the production of 'art' for profit alone, and as a reminder of what is possible through vigorous, aesthetically adventurous urban cooperation for art’s sake. As Bradley quotes saxophonist Henry Threadgill, 'When art evolves, we evolve. It’s a pursuit of truth.'"

 

SOURCE: Brendan Riley, LARB

 

 

MESSAGE FROM THE VICE-CHANCELLOR  (a fantasy!)

"Unlike other universities, however, who funded such obscenities not only with massive student fees from the children of the working class but also by hollowing out the ‘product’ that they ‘sold’, we are less exposed to the present downturn than our colleagues, with whom we hold solidarity against their managerial cuts.

 

"Here are few reasons why we are luckier. And we should admit, some of it is luck - not all, though.

 

"Firstly, we recognised the windfall for what it was and invested it in our core business - teaching and research.

 

"While other universities moved massive classes online, we kept class sizes small (even the online ones) and rewarded academics for spending time with their students in the moments it mattered - which were many more hours than the scab researchers supplying managers with the ‘data’ they wanted would admit.

 

"As an institution committed to equity, regardless of incentives to be so, this means that our wealthiest rags-to-riches graduates have a very fond attachment to our organisation, reflected in donations that would make us blush - except all our finances, every dollar - is open to public scrutiny.

 

"As a public university we are so committed to public accountability that not one contract is secret. The few partners who requested commercial-in-confidence contracts were told either we make it public or we don’t do business. This has helped engender trust in our organisation.

 

"Secondly, we trusted in and invested in our staff. No one wants to leave! And so our approach of ignoring the metrics that have corrupted the rest of the sector, eventually fell away for the individuals the rest of the system tried to imprison."

 

Source: Hannah Forsyth, F*cking Capitalism

WHAT YOU CAN LEARN FROM JUST SEVEN PAGES BY HANNAH ARENDT

 

"I recently shared a list of 26 essential books about technology.

 

"But there was an unusual twist to this list—none of these books were written by technologists. They all came from wise humanists, philosophers, novelists, and social thinkers.

 

"This is quite unconventional nowadays—STEM rules everything and everywhere, while the humanities are in crisis. But these are the books I’d assign if I taught in Stanford’s entrepreneur program.  . . .

" [Here's Arendt,] in the opening pages of her 1958 book: 

"On page one she says that people who are disconnected with the human condition are obsessed with outer space and want to 'escape man’s imprisonment to the earth.'” 

"On page two, she says that these people are 'directed towards making life artificia'”—sort of like virtual reality.

"On page three, she claims that they will eventually want to create "artificial machines to do our thinking and speaking….we would become the helpless slaves…at the mercy of every gadget which is technically possible, no matter how murderous it is.' 

"On page four, she warns us that scientists have already shown (with the development of the atomic bomb) that they create dangerous things but are 'the last to be consulted about their use.' So any prediction a scientist makes about the use of new tech is totally worthless—politicians and tyrants will decide how it is used. 

"On page five, she explains that in this kind of society, freedom becomes almost worthless, because people are deprived of the 'higher and more meaningful activities for the sake of which this freedom would deserve to be won.'

"On page six, she says that the people pursuing this escape from the human condition are thus creating 'modern world alienation.'

"On page seven, she says that they inhabit 'an "artificial" world of things distinctly different from all natural surroundings'—so that their tech innovations will lead to an inevitable degradation of the environment, and a detachment from the real world."

I read all this in astonishment.

 

Source: Ted Gioia, The Honest Broker