The Culture of Resentment

The Greek goddess Nemesis was the personification of resentment.  She was thought to punish those who were believed to be the unworthy subjects of good fortune.  She's pictured above with the goddess Tyche, representing fortune.   I assume she's the one pointing, doubtless drawing Tyche's attention to someone she's unduly favored.

"Resentment" is defined as a bitter feeling of disgust or displeasure caused by a perceived insult or injury, and can include indignation resulting from the belief that one has been treated unfairly.  Here in our Great Republic we seem consumed by the belief that we've been treated unfairly; that others are being treated better than we are in some sense.  Even worse, that someone may be perceived to be better than we are, and our status reduced as a result.

I think resentment is behind the continuing complaints against "wokeness" (never clearly defined) and what's being characterized as the preferential treatment of those who aren't like us; the insistent disregard and condemnation of those who aren't standard-issue Americans; and the pandering to the resentful we see being engaged in by so many of our politicians, particularly Republicans.  The encouragement of resentment is all we see in our politics, thus far.

It's remarkable how self-pitying we've become.  This translates into a belief in the existence of conspiracies, relieving us from fault for our own ills, relieving us from responsibility for our own failures, justifying our bitterness.  We seem to feel we're being treated unfairly when those different from us are treated well (or fairly).

The resentful aren't concerned with, and likely deny the existence of, anything along the lines of a "common good." This is because they feel aggrieved.  Addressing their complaints, the restoring of their rights and status is the highest good, for them.  They become the victims while they complain that others play the victims and are better treated in consequence.  When a person believes they're treated unfairly, the fair treatment of others is merely a reason for jealousy, and the unfair treatment of others is thought to be misrepresented or a kind of hoax.  Those discriminated against historically are no longer discriminated against, now "we" are the subjects of discrimination.

The resentful are thoughtless.  There's no room for thought when one is occupied with the belief one is being wronged.  There's no room for anything or anyone else to the resentful.  Resentment is an entirely selfish emotion.  Our communications have become complaints.  That's now the nature of our national discourse.

It's unsurprising, therefore, that those perceived to be leaders are filled with resentment themselves, and complain the loudest.

 

Action and Reaction(ary)

"Reactionary" is an interesting word.  Generally, it's defined as a person or view opposing political or social change.  That's no doubt true, but I wonder whether it's clear from that definition that a reactionary is a person or view the essence of which responds to a particular event (i.e. "reacts" to or is a "reaction").  He or she (or whatever), or it, is provoked by something.

The "cartoon" shown above, by the remarkable Gillray, an English political artist of the Revolutionary/Napoleonic era, is an example of a drawing which may be called reactionary.  It's called The Apotheosis of Hoche, and is a reaction to the excesses of the French Revolution.  Hoche was a successful general of Revolutionary France and is shown ascending into heaven bearing a guillotine instead of a harp.

A reactionary person or view is one that is prompted by a particular action, one that is contrary to the status quo in some sense and is so striking that a response is induced.  The response is typically prompt and striking as well, and in many cases thoughtless.  It is, or at least often is, a "knee-jerk" reaction.  Who or what is provoked may not react in circumstances where there is no provocation. 

"Knee-jerk" reactions are common in these sad times and very much in the news.  The nature of the reactions are worthy of study, but so are the events which provoke them.

Most recently, they seem to have been provoked by such things as a (purported) documentary regarding Cleopatra, a kind of fantasy in which the English Queen Charlotte is portrayed as black, a beer commercial which features a transgender person, a beer commercial which is critical of other beer commercials because of the manner in which they portray women, some Disney animated feature in which a character is gay, and it would seem anything which features characters or subjects which are not status quo and is seemingly intended to promote their acceptance.  

As I've noted before in this blog, I'm not inclined to be provoked in any way by any fantasy or fiction featuring characters played by actors of various races.  I think it's silly to be concerned by such things.  However, I confess it I find it annoying where history is tampered with or the laws of physics are waived, unless it's clear that the portrayal of characters isn't meant to have any relation to reality (e.g., superhero movies).  I also object to depictions of history, purported to be factual, which in fact distort or misstate history.

I don't share the fixation it appears many of my fellow citizens of our Glorious Union have on the subject of sex.  So, I wouldn't refuse to, or be inclined to, consume beer or anything else because someone different from me sexually or by gender has been used in its advertising.  I've resigned myself to the fact that there are people who aren't just like me, and think others should do so as well.

But as I've also noted in this blog, I object to what I've described as the "missionary media," those creators of advertising, movies, television, etc., who take it upon themselves to preach; who go out of their way to show us what they think is good and tell us what they think we all should find acceptable.  Note that language--"who go out of their way."  Media manipulates by its nature, but there are some who deliberately seek to manipulate others.  I prefer not to be manipulated, and suspect others prefer not to be as well.  

I don't know how a gay character came to be portrayed in a Disney animated feature, but am reasonably certain it wasn't essential to the plot that we learn that some character is gay.  I think it most likely that someone felt that it would be good for us, the viewers, if someone gay was made part of the story, simply because he or she was gay.  Someone felt that it would be a kind of learning experience for the viewers.  

I must admit that it would be my preference that sexual or romantic relationships of any kind be left for the most part undescribed in media, particularly that directed at children.  I find more than cursory portrayals of those relationships uninteresting in entertainments.  That may make me incapable of fairly judging media devoted to them, as I wish that they would just disappear.  Disney certainly has made more than its share of animated films devoted to heterosexual relationships.  Perhaps it was manipulating us by doing so.

To come to the point I wish to make:  When the missionary media takes it upon itself to preach to us in mass advertising or entertainments, particularly on issues involving race or sex here in our Great Republic, I think it should be expected that there will be reactions, and those reactions will be rejection of what is being preached.  There may be no good reason for the rejections.  They will, nonetheless, be absolute and angry rejections.  In other words, I think that the reactions many deplore, and that are knee-jerk reactions, result from provocation of a kind.  Such reactions will be stronger and more strident the more the preaching takes place.  

It strikes me that the more people are pushed to become what they don't want to become believe what they don't want to believe through mass media, whether that pushing is well-intentioned or otherwise, the more vigorously and unreasonably they'll react.  For example, they might ban certain works from schools, or prohibit certain speech in schools.  This will be taken advantage of by devoted proponents of the political and social status quo.  Those who seek to enlighten us socially, culturally and politically (which in itself has an appearance of arrogance and self-righteousness)  should understand that when they seek to do so they provide fodder for those who benefit from believing or asserting that "social engineering" is involved and that there is a conspiracy among certain elites to program people who disagree, and especially their children.

Suspicion is not an unnatural response to those who are missionaries.

 

Unfree Women, Unfree Men

The cartoon above is one of a series drawn by James Thurber, entitled The War Between Men and Women.  The title of this post is a modification of the title of a collection of the works of Camille Paglia, Free Women, Free Men, which I'm now listening to her read to me in the relative comfort of my car as I go about my travels.  Yes, there's almost certain to be a subtitle to the book of some kind, as seems to be the fashion, but if there is I can't remember it as I type.

I have a fondness for the incendiary Professor Paglia.  She's libertarian, which I still think of as my own position when it comes to the imposition of government power regarding what people think, say and do (within reason--I'm an aspiring Stoic, after all).  She seems to have a comforting respect for science, which is remarkable in an academic, as well as freedom of speech, and is opposed to what appears to be the attack being made on it in the hallowed halls of the Academy, and the oddly repressive and totalitarian views which are being thundered by its denizens at society in general and at the young in particular whom we hope to educate.  And she's of Italian descent, as am I, being a direct descendant of the great Marcus Tullius Cicero.  Well, not really, but I am clearly a Ciceronian and am of Italian descent.

I tend to agree with her as well that sex isn't entirely a social construction, and that there are certain biological differences between the sexes that cannot simply be disregarded, and may be disregarded only at our peril.  I tend also to agree with her that there are feminists whose hatred of men has overwhelmed their ability to reason, and who see male and female in perpetual conflict until the male disappears.  Where I disagree with her is in the emphasis to be given sex as a cause of or motivation for everything, or anything.  It strikes me that she feels it to be the basis for all we do or have done.

It's odd, to me, that although she gives sex, as biology, such emphasis, she also contends that all we do or have done of any significance is the result of our desire to escape nature's hold on us.  This is particularly true with respect to what men have done in creating society, technology, law.  Men, if I understand her correctly, strive constantly to escape the overwhelming, suffocating dominance of their mothers, and their achievements are the result of this striving.  Art, in particular, is humanity's effort to detach itself from nature, according to Paglia.

No doubt I'm putting her position poorly.  Regardless, though, I find it odd that although she refers to our opposition to nature and efforts to conquer or subdue it, and lauds it, she clearly feels we're subject to our natures, specifically our biological natures.  We are therefore, I would say, parts of nature.  We're not in battle with nature or in opposition to it because we're not in opposition to ourselves.  I think she makes the hard distinction between humanity and nature that's plagued Western thought since at least the time of Plato.  In order to make that distinction, I think she must accept the mind-body distinction as well.  Our minds are in conflict with nature, though our bodies are parts of nature, and our minds thus are in conflict with our bodies as well.

If we think of ourselves as part of nature, living creatures existing in an environment and interacting with it and other creatures, this sense of dire opposition disappears.  We do instead what every other creature does, attempt to satisfy our desires and resolve or avoid dangers.  We happen to have an intelligence which permits us to interact with other parts of the environment in a more satisfying and successful way than others (as far as our wants and needs are concerned), but that doesn't mean we're at war with the rest of nature.  It's uncertain whether we can even claim to be unique in our use of language or in the production of art, given discoveries being made in the conduct of other animals.

As for the prevalence of sex, sex as the primary if not the sole cause of all we do or think, there's no question that it fascinates and obsesses us.  But that, and the tendency to ascribe to it such causal significance, may itself be a social construction.  It's importance is obvious.  Not so obvious, to me at least, are the reasons that it is accorded even greater importance, why it is considered, in effect, all-important.  Why does it figure so completely in our art, law and religion?  Can this be said to arise solely due to biology, to our hormones, to our physical nature?  Or, might it be the result of efforts made to glorify what can in fact be considered a "simple" biological need present in all creatures, to make of it by custom or otherwise something much more of a social and cultural feature than it need be for reasons that are not simply the result of our biology?

Also, and obviously, if we are in fact so driven by sex, it's questionable to what extent we can be referred to as "free" and if we can be so described, the question arises:  Just how free are we, if what we do is so influenced by sex?  What I suspect Paglia means to say when she speaks of free women and men, is that we should be free, just as she says we should be equal, under the law. 

I'm suspicious of theories regarding human conduct, society and culture that posit a single cause for all, that envision a kind of First Mover behind what we do, to which all may be traced.  Suspicious, too, of categories, like Apollonian or Dionysian.  They may be useful generalizations, but are clumsy explanatory devices when applied to all we do and are.  Our aims should be more modest.  Totalitarianism begins with the belief that there is a single, simple answer or truth that has been found, and must be accepted by all.  That's a belief system which isn't eradicated when another single, simple answer or truth has been found, which must be accepted.