The Digital Writer |
The writer, by instinct, distrusts the "business civilization." I am certain that most of the good people who lived before "business civilization," thank God they were not born in this era. "Give us the old church or the good old King over this inhuman nonsense!"
The person who goes into a corporation, comes out quite different. This is a rather frightening spectacle and demonstrates how willful the corporation seeks to destroy the soul. And the truth of the matter is that economic warfare has taken over for the old military conflicts, the cultural imperative. Very few people are involved in the military; fewer yet will see combat. It is done by professionals. Economy, however, is the constant war waged by the majority of people in one capacity or the other.
In the past writers celebrated the deeds of heroic military types and great battles. Can the same be done in the economic culture?
I look at the computer industry, for instance, because I was fortunate enough to see it being built from ground-zero in the San Francisco area. That is, when it was just shaggy-haired, bearded young nerds running around Berkeley and Palo Alto and San Francisco with all kinds of crazy ideas. At that point, "business," is interesting to the writer. And when the computer revolution hit in the early 80's the vast adrenaline was something to behold. A fireball of action! A supernova exploding by the sleepy town of San Jose. That is interesting to the writer. But then when it consolidates, when it goes public, when its takes the predictable path the writer yawns. "And all of these fine souls have been destroyed by the inhuman greed!" Now, that's interesting. It's a common theme, predictable but always inspires something approaching awe when one sees it in the flesh and bone.
There are amelioration's in business civilization. And you connect a "business civilization" with a liberal, democratic culture and a dynamo is produced. Provided, that is, that the liberal, democratic culture is superior, is valued more, is made greater than the business civilization. And for people skeptical that such a conflict exists I suggest opting out of it for awhile and see what happens.
After the writer shakes himself loose of both fright and loathing at the situation he's more apt to view the "business civilization" as producing types; the professional, the expert, the bureaucrat, the corporate manager, the entrepreneur, the employee among others. Types and scenes; collections of faceless boxes in the downtown region of a city that announce, over the tops of the steeples and city hall, "we rule." And the writer is convinced that once this is fait acompli, once the business civilization is all and has fully enveloped and consumed the liberal, democratic culture then it will become fully corrupt, in spirit, and the era of American nationhood will end. So, the stakes are rather high.
The great servant today for the business civilization is the camera owned by media.
The writer, properly, stands outside of all of this, acutely aware of what the stakes are. Acutely aware of history, the flow of history, the necessity of endings. And the writer can do this now because the official opposition, the ideological opposition to the business civilization has disappeared. It doesn't exist. That communist is not under your bed anymore. In fact, it's likely that the communist has some venture capital now. Every good communist is seeking venture capital these days. And it's not that the writer has a particular point of view except that of the liberal, democratic soul.
Business civilization is not the enemy. It is the central fact. And it is the central facts that make up the writers universe.
Other signficant facts are government, science and technology. These central facts are immovable and criticism is a kind of modern version of "saving face." However, the writer has the ability to trace the central facts back to the seeds out of which they developed. That is a crucial moment captured by the imagination. We can do nothing about the corporation but we can see that they form out of an idea and that idea is something we can grasp. What stands before us in the form of a city landscape is the hard shell of ideas that are busily exhausting the people.
Modern art reveals a good deal of disintegration in the "wholeness" of human beings. This disintegration is a real process, much more prominent in Europe and older cultures than America but present here too. The American problem is that it has such a profound distrust of the intellect; and this is an effect of coming from below, as most of us do. The intellect is seen, then, as power, as authority, as a disruptive force in the hands of science and technology. The American looks at smart people as those who try to rip them off in politics or the economy. All this has done though has been to eviscerate the American people and made them far more susceptible to manipulation, even control. And what has emerged from the people?
A grotesque pop culture that is much more reminiscent of the barbaric tribes north of the Rhine River than anything that a so-called civilization should produce. Most of it is pure manipulation of the great, barbaric energies that youth feels by marketers and that ilk. And as a source of satire and derision it's fairly innocuous. It's when you see how it is moving into the political culture that you realize something afoul is upon us. The 80's were dominated by an actor, the 90's were dominated by a wannabe actor who surrounded himself with Hollywood types. The most powerful state in the union is ruled by an actor. And, a concerted effort will be made to allow that actor to run for President.
All of this presents a very discouraging, very apocolyptic feeling.
And it's occurring at the moment that America is being viewed as the "enemy of the world."
The alternative or response to this should not be the fundamentalists who are crazy in their own way. The culture shouldn't be split apart between the libertines on the one hand, and the repressors on the other. The only hope is a strong, liberal democratic culture that is balanced between intellect and emotion; skeptical enough to investigate things but rooted enough in the reality of the organizing principles that they will defend it.
I am not one who says, "good-by print," I am skeptical of those who believe the print publishing system will go away soon. But there is an astounding freedom on the digital system for those who have the self-discipline and confidence. This is where Homer and Shakespeare would be. That's good enough for me.
Journalism is the golden hammer that comes down on power when it makes mistakes, when it gets haughty, when it kills, when it lies, when it cheats. And it's doing these things all the time. Anything less is a huge repression of a free press and free mind. Here is where the blogger can make a difference as long as his advocacy is transparent and his arguments are reasonable.
No doubt, whatever "culture" or "public" that has been created in the past ten or twenty years is due for a rapid change. The disintegration will be appaling for some, good for others. It comes as a shock to the young who believe that what they grew up with will last forever. No, it doesn't and your choices are meaningful.
The camera is very imperial and tends to make everyone the same. Not only will the future recognize this it will rebel against it.
And what if a new publishing system were being structured by writers? What would that publishing system look like? That's an interesting question.
David
Click here to send your comments
on this month's column.
NEXT