Archive for the ‘Culture Wars’ Category

Keep Your Crappy Pizza: Dividing the Spoils of the Culinary Culture Wars – Phoenix New Times

Wal-Mart v. Target.

Buttons v. elastic.

Pinot grigio v. Mountain Dew.

Culture wars.

We're hearing the term more and more to describe the political climate in this country; it's no longer Democrat v. Republican, liberals v. conservatives.

The gap is widening, not only along political ideologies, but culture itself.

As a country, we haven't all watched the same news for a while now; we don't drive the same cars, and half of us don't believe our bigger-than-a-parking-space SUV has any correlation to climate change because scientists and experts have an agenda (what that is, the rest of us still don't know).

Half of Republicans believe higher education is worthless, and consider the word "elite" dirty, even though they voted for a guy who literally has 24K gold wallpaper.

The state of our country has boiled down to this: PBS v. Duck Dynasty.

When Donald Trump tweeted that transgender people were now banned from serving in the military, the gap grew even wider, and if we're really talking culture, it's just a matter of time before restaurants tumble in and fall on top of news cable shows, bronze statues of Confederate heroes and freedom fries.

Therefore, I've done a bit of legwork so when the time comes, as in any day now, we know where we belong and can retreat immediately to those areas. We don't want to eat with you any more than you want to eat with us; may a stray fiber from a pussy hat never again touch a MAGA baseball cap back-to-back in adjoining booths.

It's time for some boundaries. Here you go.

THE RED ZONE

Fast Food (but not Arbys) Conservatives, waiting for your coal mining jobs to come back can make a man mighty hungry, so when its time to chow, feel free to head to any fast-food restaurant where you can get the most saturated fat for your money, with the exception of Arbys (I leave that one out for purely selfish reasons, as its my favorite). Feel free to toss that paper football of trash right out the window onto the highway because youre a goddamned American, thats why. I wont be there to see it.

Country Music More good news! Any food and drink establishment that plays country music is also your territory, as is the presence of sawdust on the floor. Is Natural Light on tap? Then youre in a Red zone, Trumpkin!

TV In the mood for something fancy? Any eatin establishment with a TV is now your territory, mainly because no restaurant televisions sets are tuned in to Masterpiece Theater or the News Hour.

Italian Food All Italian joints are on your list, too, because, well, most of their owners came from New Jersey, and voted for Christie (and still think hes doing a great job), but the most significant qualification was the Mooch. Sure, he only lasted in the Trump admin as long as it takes a mosquito bite to itch, but the penance needs to be paid. Its going to take more than a couple Hail Marys to cancel that sin out.

Bargain Pizza As far as pizza goes, if you have to cook it once you get home or get two large pies, a bag of bread and some pizza dough with chocolate syrup on it for dessert for under $12, place that call now.

Guns and Chains You also get every establishment that gleefully permits guns, has pictures of their food on their menu for easy deciding for those who have trouble with letters, and any grub hole that has more than two locations. That means Sizzler! SIZZLER! You get SIZZLER! I know, buried the lede, but I saved the best for last.

THE BLUE ZONE

Gay Waiters Now for liberals: All right, so you have relinquished spaghetti and meatballs, but guess what you get in return? Gay waiters! Thats right, any restaurant that has the best wait staff is now your home, because if the conservatives put their hush puppies where their mouth is, both of the ends of the rainbow can be found in Blue Land.

All Ethnic Food (Except Italian) Thats not all, folks! The in the liberal corner is all ethnic food except Italian. We even get German because of Angela Merckel! All Mexican is ours, and that includes every taco shop, bertos incarnation and mom and pop place. (Even the chains. I just rewrote that rule.) Let Trump build that Mexican wall, and watch as the liberals eat it away. Chinese. Japanese. Indian. Middle Eastern. Thai. Anyone that conservatives want to ban from this country is one more spice in the collection.

Organic If a restaurant uses even one organic ingredient, the liberals get it, as well as anything that serves chow and is on wheels, so give us all the food trucks.

Gourmet Pizza As far as pizza goes for this side: If there is fresh basil, homemade mozzarella and dough that isnt delivered in frozen little balls as tight and cold as Steve Bannons heart, its progressive. They prefer things to rise instead of thaw.

So, Im sorry, liberals, this guide probably rules out most fried food and places that serve you a loaf of bread as a free appetizer. But we all have to make sacrifices for the cause, whichever cause it may be.

And this doesnt mean you cant patronize the other side, but know it comes with risks.

For every visit to Cracker Barrel, liberals should expect a heaping helping of Prosecute Hillary talk while people buy snacks in the waiting area in order to survive until they get a table. To satisfy every craving for a chimichanga, conservatives must realize that there possibly an undocumented worker nearby, plotting to take their jobs.

Now go to your corners and eat.

Originally posted here:
Keep Your Crappy Pizza: Dividing the Spoils of the Culinary Culture Wars - Phoenix New Times

Beyond the Purity Culture Wars – Sojourners

For the last two decades, the evangelical church in the United States has adopted a posture many refer to as purity culture, which praises the virtue of chastity and calls on all single young adults to pledge themselves to a high standard of sexual purity before marriage. This movement was especially pronounced in the late '90s, aided by a 1997 book by Joshua Harris, I Kissed Dating Goodbye, published when he was just 21 years old. The book asks readers to consider a spiritual alternative to the secular practice of dating. Its massive popularity went on to directly and indirectly shape dating rules laid out by many evangelical parents, and in turn shape the relationships and habits of a generation of young evangelical readers.

Twenty years later, many 20- and 30-somethings still feel the effect of growing up inside purity culture. Online communities like the No Shame Movement give space to individuals to speak out about the harm physical, spiritual, mental, or emotional purity culture has caused.

In her 2015 book Damaged Goods: New Perspectives on Christian Purity, author Dianna Anderson explains some of the negative consequences of purity culture:

Many grew up being told over and over that their virginity was the most important thing they could give their spouse on their wedding night, only to reach that point and realize that having saved themselves didnt magically create sexual compatibility or solve their marital issues. Many soon divorced. Still others sat silently in their church groups, wondering what virginity could possibly mean for them as people who had been victims of incest or abuse or who felt attracted to the same gender.

Two years ago, Harris left his position as minister of the Covenant Life Church to study theology at Regent College. There, Harris met filmmaker Jessica Van Der Wyngaard, who was completing a master's in Theological Studies. Van Der Wyngaard was considering a documentary on issues of singleness and dating in the church, and after studying alongside students like Van Der Wyngaard, Harris developed a goal to revisit his book. He wanted to figure out what he still agreed with, while addressing the impact it has had on so many. As he completed a guided study with a professor, reading books that covered Christian culture at the turn of the century, he simultaneously began asking for public input from individuals, responding to tweets and emails from readers.

Fatherhood has also changed Harris perspective. One of Harriss daughters is now entering dating age.

We do learn through the agonizing journey of mistakes and heartache and pain, and I think that my impulse as a dad is to protect her from that, but I dont think thats realistic," Harris said. "I think you create a different set of problems when you try to protect yourself or your kids from that. I think what I want for her is to have rich relationships that begin with her relationship with God and flow into relationships with men and women with many different backgrounds and perspectives, and I want her to learn by interacting with lots of people the type of person she wants to be alongside in a committed relationship.

When Jessica Van Der Wyngaard arrived at Regent in her late 20s, she saw the issues around singleness that shed experienced at her home church magnified at the university level. Other single friends agreed to feeling pressured toward marriage or made to feel as if something was wrong with them.

What frustrated me was that so much of the dialogue around sexual purity, singleness, and dating was in the hands of the people who got married when they were 21, she said. And they dont know what its like to be in your late 20s or early 30s and single, and that dialogue needed to be expressed from someone that was in that position.

After discussing the documentary, Van Der Wyngaard and Harris agreed that a partnership made sense. Van Der Wyngaard would produce and direct a documentary that followed Harriss journey as he processed his first book and looking how the issues surrounding dating and singleness in the church have evolved over the past 20 years.

Theyre calling the project I Survived I Kissed Dating Goodbye.

One of the documentarys subjects, Debra Fileta, therapist and author of True Love Dates: Your Indespensable Guide to Finding the Love of your Life, explained her participation via email:

The past 20 years, so much of the conversation within the church has been centered on what not to do in relationships ... but there aren't enough people talking about how to do dating and relationships well. So many singles are going into marriage completely unequipped due to the lack of education and conversation that's happening about relationships in the dating phase I'm thankful to have a chance to be a part of this upcoming conversation.

Earlier this summer, Van Der Wyngaard launched a Kickstarter to fund the documentary so that they could release the film for free and make it a resource for churches. Van Der Wyngaard explained that she had been waiting for years for someone to engage in the questions she believes the film will ask. She decided that crowdsourcing, as opposed to finding organizational sponsorship, was a way of including others like her who were asking the same questions.

I wanted the conversation to feel for people like they were part of it, like they were owning part of this conversation and were on the journey with us, she said.

Some familiar with Harris first book are wary of donating to revisited project without a clear understanding of what its overall message will be. Poet and public speaker Emily Joy wrote on Facebook, Unless Joshua Harris is about to renounce the entirety of purity culture, from style to content, then he doesn't need a single dollar from us and he certainly doesn't need 38,000 of them to tell us that he meant well but just got a few things wrong.

According to her Facebook page, Joy is among the post-evangelical Christians currently leaving the church due to its hate-filled rhetoric and exclusionary theology. And in fact, one of the biggest challenges that Van Der Wyngaards and Harris project will face is that many of the individuals who survived I Kissed Dating Goodbye have left the evangelical church and are less open to hearing a conservative response.

Harris says he anticipates this.

Its understandable that people want to know exactly whats going to be said before they fund something, he said. And he says that he and Van Der Wyngaard are still approaching the topic from a conservative stance.

We think we have a chance to encourage a humility and a respect which we recognize that different people would say, Well that falls so far short of where you need to be, but were trying to be realistic about where we are and who we can speak to at this point, he said.

The entire scope of the documentary is still a work in progress. While they know that they cant address all issues around sexuality for instance, they do not plan on tackling topics like sexual orientation or pornography head on they are interviewing individuals like Debra Hirsch, author of Redeeming Sex: Naked Conversations about Sexuality and Spirituality, who is already asking them provoking questions that broaden the conversation.

If their Kickstarter is not funded, the project might not come to life as it is laid out, but both Harris and Van Der Wyngaard are still committed to producing a free public message. Just where the conversation will go, theyve yet to figure out.

Continue reading here:
Beyond the Purity Culture Wars - Sojourners

Don’t Recruit Your Children for Culture Wars – Patheos (blog)

Left vs. Right.

Liberal vs. Conservative.

Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty.

Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life.

Evolution vs. Creationism.

These are the culture wars of my generation. This the rhetoric woven into the evangelicalism of my upbringing. In just about every battle, Ive fought hard on both sides, first on the right and now on the left, and Im not sure which was harderdigging my heels in on either side, or making that painful transition from one to the other.

Photo byJason RosewellonUnsplash

However, as I consider ushering my children into a better faith, I want a spiritual landscape for them that isnt set up as binaries. I think, maybe, the problem isnt which side theyll take but whether they should be forced to choose at all. Because ultimately, I dont think engaging in warfare is the best way to live in the world. I prefer we pave a path for our children to live out their vision; to create art as resistance, to make beauty as a rallying cry, and to walk in their truth with intention.

Its important to not recruit our children for our culture wars because our culture wars are particular to our context and irrelevant to their modern sensibilities. We dont know yet the issues that will plague their generation, it may or may not be the same ones that troubled our times. If we equip them with rhetoric to fight our culture wars, they will go armed into a battlefield where no one shows up. I see this in the way some young adults who have learned anti-LGBTQ dogma in the home entering into a political landscape where that contention is already over. Gay marriage equality is the law of the land in the U.S. and slowly spreading in other areas of the world.

This is not to say we do nothing to prepare our children to engage with critical issues of their time. Not at all. Unfundamentalist parenting is to raise critical thinkers who will continually interrogate all perspectives. Parents, just be prepared that this means we have to make space for them to interrogate our own treasured positions as well. My kids sometimes threaten me (jokinglyfor now) by saying they might adopt fundamentalism, and I have to be willing to give them their own agency. Now, I am fairly confident they wont, because I do everything I can to compel them, not with force, but with love, and I believe love wins. But love always liberates our children with autonomy to choose freely.

What I hope to teach them is that there is nothing beyond critique. Every position, every voice, every movement has blind spots and to expose blind spots is to help ourselves grow in integrity and contribute to bettering our world.

But most importantly, I want to raise children who learn to connect meaningfully with others in an increasingly pluralistic world. The most fundamental problem with culture wars is the way it severs connection, separating people from ideas, and driving each tribe to retreat into a small ideological enclave.

This does not mean we raise children to be wishy-washy moderates who are people pleasers without a backbone. On the contrary, the best way to engage meaningfully with others is to present oneself as whole and complex human beings, filled with passion and conviction. Encourage their fire when our children align themselves with specific causes, even ones we may not agree with, because it means they are actively taking up space with who they are. But this means we all, us and our children, need to allow other whole human beings to fully be present as well.

The greatest lie of culture wars is that we have to hide aspects of ourselves because our ideas are too polarized and conflicting. If there is a war we must take on, it is to counter this falsehood, in order that our children can live in a world where each one of them can present themselves as whole, complex, evolving people. That they can intersect one anothers paths as fully themselves, interact with one other with passionate conviction, and part ways having built one another up instead of tearing each other down.

So dont. Dont recruit our children for culture wars.

Lets make citizens, not soldiers.

Get a free downloadof a Christian parenting manifesto that helps us guide children into healthy spirituality + the most helpful parenting resources with progressive values.

Go here to read the rest:
Don't Recruit Your Children for Culture Wars - Patheos (blog)

Dialectic of Dark Enlightenments: The Alt-Right’s Place in the … – lareviewofbooks

JULY 30, 2017

IN Kill All Normies: Online Culture Wars from 4chan and Tumblr to Trump and the Alt-Right (Zero Books, 2017), Angela Nagle does two remarkable things. First, she situates the emergence of alt-right meme culture in a dialectical relationship to Professional Managerial Class liberalism thats incarnated, she argues, by Barack Obama: articulate, erudite, cosmopolitan. This timely intervention allows us to understand how the United States of America elected a troll president who delighted throughout his campaign in inflaming a sense of grievance while giving the finger to the first enemy of the culture war: political correctness. Second, she provides the thick anthropological context for the emergence of the alt-right and its media friendlier faces, what she calls the alt-light. Nagles book is a highly readable polemical intellectual history of culturalism and the internet; it makes the case that there would be no Trump without the prankster sadism of meme culture. Its a credit to the books critical sophistication that both ends of the identity politics spectrum will feel aggrieved by Nagles assessment of their tactics and their politics.

Kill All Normies opens by giving readers an overview of the utopian promises of networked horizontality: it shows us that, contra to the hopes of many on the left, hackerist anonymity married to group psychology and fast internet connections did not produce better politics. Nagles book tracks, for instance, the complex online polarization that sprang up after the Cincinnati Zoo shot Harambe, the gorilla into whose cage a young African-American child had fallen: online, internet-driven mourning rituals around Harambe intersected complexly with viral memes making fun of those same rituals. From there, Nagles book moves to build on her thesis that the cultural politics of transgression, so long fetishized by the left, have been triumphantly adopted by the right. She then offers an account of the viciousness of Tumblr liberal authoritarianism, with its ever-proliferating new forms of gender identities and the finger-pointing sanctimony of identity vanguardism. Nagle likens the extreme political correctness of Tumblr culture wars to virtue hoarding: only the select are virtuous and know how to handle the new identities correctly. The rest of us are sausage-fingered cis-gendered idiots who need to do the perp walk of shame every day. Competitive Tumblr shaming shuts down not only dialogue but also the very possibility for solidarity and coalition building along the shared experiences of alienation and exploitation.

Nagles final chapters deal with the anti-feminist Manosphere that gave us rape apologists, male separatism, and the Proud Boys, a pseudo-fascist group who now show up to campuses to defend free speech and far-right speakers while provoking violent confrontations around campus culture wars. These chapters show how the new internet culture of male sexual grievance gave permission to express openly and directly violence against and hatred of women, with the most tragic result being Elliot Rodgers mass murders. Finally, Nagle unexpectedly draws a stunning connection between online misogyny and the treatment of inexperienced participants or, as they are called in the internet-born language leetspeak, n00bs. In her conclusion, she brings it all back to an analysis of the alt-light presidency of Donald Trump, concluding with a clear denunciation of transgression as a political form. The book is breathtaking and concise. It is a slim volume and a must-read, although its worth saying that the intermittent misspelling of Pat Buchanans name was irritating and distracting. Zero Books: If you are going to be publishing a volume of such political and intellectual significance, make sure you get copyediting in perfect order.

Nagle does not invite us to share a thrilling sense of horror and disgust at the cruelty of alt-right and alt-light meme culture; instead, she implicates left strategies in particular and contemporary internet culture in general in participating in the creation of a world in which the alt-right could rise. In some ways, Nagles book explains Hillary Clintons dramatic failure to damage Donald Trumps campaign when she fingered him as a champion of the alt-right. Clintons great reveal was greeted by alt-right champion Richard Spencer as great publicity, and Trump voters did not move to the middle. To Nagle, Clintons shaming strategies reveal her ignorance of the actual political dynamics of the electorate.

Nagle argues convincingly that the most prolific actors on the alt-right and the alt-light have been great students of the culture wars, but not in the way we might think. Alt-right movements did not model themselves after aspirational aristocrats and defenders of Western tradition like William F. Buckley Jr. or Allan Bloom. No! Instead, they have adopted the fetishism of transgression that marked the Cultural Studies left: they embedded themselves in subcultural styles repellent to mainstream, middlebrow liberal sensibilities and they call on their armies to attack the tastes and sensibilities embodied by n00bs and normies. Punk street style of the mid- to late 1970s, with its Vaselined Mohawks and safety-pinned T-shirts appeared as rebellious and, to Dick Hebdige, deeply meaningful attacks on working-class masculinity. Ironic meme culture attacks continues to pater la bourgeoisie by targeting nave online expressions of sentimentality in spontaneous actions, ranging from the defacement of Facebook memorial pages and to hijacking Cincinnati Zoo Director Thane Maynards Twitter account to spread #DicksoutforHarambe.

Nagle is one of the brightest lights in a new generation of left writers and thinkers who have declared their independence from intellectual conformity with liberal academic nostra about difference and hegemony. Whereas Hebdige found punk and subcultural expressions of rebellion as politically progressive and anti-authoritarian, Nagle is willing to question the Cultural Studies assumption that the margins represent a kind of political wisdom that the uninitiated need Roland Barthes to decode.

At the center of this book and in what is one of its most brilliant and controversial chapters, Gramscians of the alt-light, Nagle argues the alt-light succeeded in creating its own form of transgression-based revolt against the cultural hegemony of establishment sensibilities. Antonio Gramsci, an Italian communist activist and thinker, spent 11 years in prison under Italian fascists. His greatest legacy was his critique of Marxist economic determinism, a position that was embraced by left academics in the Anglo-American world. During the 1970s and 80s, in light of the decline of Old Labour and the rise of Margaret Thatcher, Anglo-American leftists used Gramscis ideas of cultural hegemony to describe plans for the political importance of establishing alternative culture and alternative media: its everyday practices of cultural production and consumption would extract political gold by mining the marginal and the debased, camp and trash styles of expression that high to middlebrow taste cultures rejected.

Provocatively, Nagle argues that it was the alt-right that applied the strategies of changing popular taste through alternative media most successfully. Steve Bannons political ambitions were realized at Breitbart, where his intellectual animus against mainstream/lamestream media found angry audiences hungry for an alternative political discourse promoted by more and more extreme voices.

Furthermore, alt-light figures like Milo Yiannopoulos (before his downfall) and mustachioed Vice co-founder Gavin McInnes have succeeded in shaping popular culture and its audiences media consumption habits through alternative and subcultural channels. McInnes was forced to leave Rooster, the hipster ad agency that he founded, after he published an article entitled Transphobia is Perfectly Natural on Thought Catalog in 2014; it is widely seen as a piece of hate speech. He was also forced out of Vice for his extreme views. Yet these removals have not diminished McInness media influence: through his YouTube channel, Rebel Media, and other venues such as Fox News, McInnes remains an emblem of right-wing cool. These and similar figures said outrageous things and took outrageous positions, adorning themselves in the Nietzschean finery of punk dandies ready to rock your centrist world: Although the tactics of the online right are updated to a digital age, it is hard to think of a better term than Gramscian to describe what they have strategically achieved, Nagle writes, as a movement almost entirely based on influencing culture and shifting the Overton window through media and culture. Rather than operating exclusively through formal politics, they succeeded largely by bypassing the dying mainstream media and creating an Internet-culture and alternative media of their own from the ground up. The left has created its own alternative media: the addictive and brilliant podcast Chapo Trap House and Jacobin are two recent success stories, but Nagle points out that the alt-light and the alt-right have been more popular and more successful at brewing loyal right-wing audiences.

Nagle goes on to argue that the online social movements of the right, with a constellation of interlocking and multilayered alternative media platforms, spanning YouTube, Twitter, and news sites like Breitbart, created a pantheon of alt-light media celebrities ready to deliver a punch in the gut to their self-defined enemies: liberals and snowflakes. They built audiences by giving the finger to the superego of professionally managed social tolerance, and of course, that long-hated bogeyman, political correctness. The mainstream media and the Democratic Party underestimated the power of these alternative media outlets and the outsized personalities that they promoted. They thought that when Hillary Clinton named this movement in her campaign against Donald Trump, underinformed Trump sympathizers would recoil at any association with the proto-fascist agenda of these groups.

Trumps boasts about pussy grabbing fit right into the alt-light subcultural style: hedonistic, misogynistically irreverent, imbued with a vulgar lust for life, Trump could always allude to the light-heartedness of Pepe meme-making, while trashing the snowflake/virtue-signaling sensibilities of the liberal internet at the same time.

Erstwhile poster boy for the alt-light Milo Yiannopoulos made his name during the Gamergate controversies (the 4chan-spawned war between male gamers and female game critics like Anita Sarkeesian that led to the by-now-familiar doxxing and death threats against any proponent of greater diversity and gender representation in formerly male-nerd-dominated online environments). He went on to become an editor at Breitbart and embarked this past winter on a violence- and controversy-plagued tour of US campuses, where he would display signs like Dear Trump: Please Deport Fat People before launching into diatribes against political correctness. Nagle points out that Yiannopoulos disingenuously drew a direct line between the online culture wars he waged in the 2010s with Buchanans invocation of the struggle for the soul of America in his speech to the Republican National Convention of 1992. But Milos hereditary relationship with Buchanans fire-and-brimstone evangelism is less salient than he wants to believe, and this tension helps explain the limits of what he accomplished. Yiannopouloss eventual downfall captures all the irony of a right-wing outrage dandy trying to cozy up to an Evangelical Christian forefather he called Daddy. Yiannopouloss defense of free speech through pressing the limits of the publicly thinkable and sayable is related to the dark side of radical internet libertarianism: Nagle points out that the right-wing style that Yiannopoulos embodied represents a marriage of the ironic, irreverent, taboo-busting culture of 4chan with the politics of the right.

In 2014, the Washington Post published a bemused but fundamentally positive account of 4chan here.4chan is an anonymous forum launched in 2003, home to cat memes and celebrity nude photo leaks, pornified sadism and Nietzschean voluntarism. The most extreme corners of 4chan are located at /b/ and /pol/, places where darker fantasies of beta-males and political irreverence are shared. It was the image- and humor-based culture of the irreverent meme factory of 4chan and later 8chan that gave the alt-right its youthful energy, with its transgression and hacker tactics, Nagle explains. And these energies manifested elsewhere, as well: The Guy Fawkes mask used in the protests in 2011 was a reference to Anonymous, which took its name, leaderless anticelebrity ethic and networked style from the chaotic anonymous style of 4chan. Rather than romanticize the power of Anonymous troll armies as forces that can threaten Evil Corporation la televisions Mr. Robot, Nagle shows that the power of 4chans mob actions were most effectively exercised against grieving parents on Facebook, n00bs who used the internet too navely, and feminist computer game critics.

4chan-driven persecution delights in the victimization of the uninitiated and the ingnue in much the way that 18th-century libertines from Choderlos de Laclos and the Marquis de Sade delighted in describing the ravishing of besotted know-nothing virgins. At stake in a sense of belonging to extreme right groups is a sense of powerful insider knowledge. Nagle dissects the relationship between the dark resentments against women and mainstream culture nursed on 4chan and the rhetoric of the Proud Boys, Roosh V, and Richard Spencer, who all advocate an anti-feminist, anti-mainstream-culture sensibility that is based on a mixture of punks subcultural hypermasculinity and alternative culture erudition married to pride in Western Cultural traditions identity politics for white men, appropriating the terms of Gay and Black Pride to defend white male identity.

In her description of 4chan and alt-right subcultures, Nagle is unstinting in her critiques of both moral panic responses and academic ultra-PC tolerance of chan cultures transgressive and countercultural ethos. Before 2016, Nagle notes that academics like Whitney Phillips, author of This is Why We Cant Have Nice Things: The Relationship Between Trolling and Mainstream Culture (MIT Press, 2016), offered a fundamentally troll-sympathetic account of the relationship between deviant behavior and the mainstream. For Phillips, trolls are basically harmless DIY meme producers responding to large-scale, mass-produced cultural meanings that dominate the media landscape. In this sense, Phillips and Gabriella Coleman, author of Hacker, Hoaxer, Whistleblower, Spy: The Many Faces of Anonymous (Verso, 2015) embrace /chan/ cultures contempt for n00bs and mainstream taste. Nagle points to the work of Sarah Thorntons study of subcultural capital (Club Cultures: Music, Media and Subcultural Capital, Wesleyan University Press, 1996) as a powerful counterpoint to affirmations of 4chan, Anonymous, and hacker elites.

Following Thornton, Nagle refuses to accept subcultural claims about its own righteous exclusivity: the accumulation of subcultural capital by punks, club kids, and now the alt-right look extraordinarily similar, especially when all these subcultures share a hatred of the shallow, vain clueless girl with mainstream tastes trying to infiltrate a geeky subculture. She argues that the hatred of the basic bitch has become an organizing principle for the subcultural formation itself. Taking as an example Richard Spencer, the 39-year-old president of the white-nationalist think tank the National Policy Institute, Nagle emphasizes Spencers reliance on cool: Richard Spencer regularly accuses those who fail to find the return of race separatism edgy and cool, of being normies and basic bitches. Finally, Nagle shows that Richard Spencers neo-fascist political style has not sprung directly from 1930s Germany, but is a response to Obamas cool liberal style, 4chan, new media history, alternative medias war against cultural hegemony as well as academic fetishism of anti-normativity, subculture, and transgression.

Nagles measured prose, her commitment to both context and dialectics, contradiction and convergence as well as her stark imperturbability in the face of deeply disturbing materials make her the ideal reader of both liberal and academic hypocrisy as well as alt-right instrumentalization of transgression as politics. The alt-rights promotion of racism and misogyny happens in an online space that is increasingly characterized by vicious antagonisms. The alt-right and alt-lights war on respectability has to be framed as an aggravation of contemporary class warfare.

Her critique of Tumblr liberalism, however, needs an added dimension: this particularly violent and intolerant form of identity politics represents the political and cultural vanguard of an increasingly toxic Professional Managerial Class, whose need to consolidate its economic advantages comes during a time of stringent class consolidation. In 1976, John and Barbara Ehrenreich noted that PMC monopoly on progressive/left politics was a development in class conflict that would have profound effects on the rise of neoliberalism and globalization in the decades to come. While this class emerged as an enemy or at least an antagonist of capital during the early decades of the 20th century, its political neutrality has become increasingly complicit with the status quo of income inequality. In order to differentiate itself culturally from the working classes and the interests of finance capital, it draws upon the sentimental and melodramatic innovations of its forebears of the 18th century. Suffering and victimization become its calling cards: a precious and esoteric language of difference and tolerance supplant an analysis of contradiction and solidarity. It focuses on hegemonic cultural politics and self-improvement and the transformation of everyday life.

Its political betrayal of working-class interests and its refusal to work toward economic distribution are disguised by its liberal/managerial and deeply technocratic and apolitical attitude toward progress. As long as the PMC has no sense of its alliance with the salaried masses, popular discontent and hatred of its precious ways will be fertile ground for the fomenting of internet-driven forms of Anglophone fascism. Angela Nagle has shown that in the absence of solidarity and a real political, economic program on the left, we will continue to see the popularity of alt-right sadism and mischief-based memes, gesturing toward a dystopic space of irony and hipness, policed by trolls with fascist tendencies. When pressed, spokespeople of the alt-right and alt-light will say that they only want the establishment of a white ethno-state. If you insist on the details of police-state measures, violent exclusion, and genocide necessary to achieve their goal, they retreat into hipster irony and protestations about the innocence of their separatist dreams. Professional Managerial Class liberalism has not only failed at destroying fascism and white supremacy, but it may also very well, through its cultivation of culturalist pieties and neglect of economic policies, add to the appeal of its most virulent adversaries.

Catherine Liu is professor of Film and Media Studies at UC Irvine. Author of two academic monographs, Copying Machines: Taking Notes for the Automaton and American Idyll: Academic Anti-Elitism as Cultural Critique, she has also published a novel called Oriental Girls Desire Romance.

View post:
Dialectic of Dark Enlightenments: The Alt-Right's Place in the ... - lareviewofbooks

The culture war – Emporia Gazette

Something Josh Barro Text ColorSwatch/NoneStrokeStyle/$ID/SolidText ColorSwatch/NoneStrokeStyle/$ID/Solid$ID/NothingText ColorText Color$ID/NothingText ColorText Colorrecently wrote in a Business Insider essay struck a raw nerve with me: Except on abortion, where public opinion remains about evenly divided, conservatives have implicitly admitted that they have lost certain parts of the cultural war.

Hes probably right. Most conservatives can see that our culture is changing at what appears to be breakneck speed.

As I observe the changes, the question for me as a conservative is no longer How do I/we stop this? Were well past that stage.

Once in a while in conversations with friends, I allude to the old slippery slope, which instantly makes me the target for their loving scorn. This isnt the slippery slope, Phil. Its progress. The conversation usually ends there, with me stubbornly clinging to my thoughts of humanity at the highest point of the roller coaster, poised to take the plunge straight down into the abyss.

The signs of change are becoming more and more pronounced. A case like Charlie Gard, where the State apparatus has supplanted parental rights, has become legally acceptable. At what point will society decide this arrangement is also morally acceptable? Will it become normative?

It wasnt too long ago that euthanasia was almost impossible to imagine. Now, its becoming increasingly tolerable, even to the point where involuntary euthanasia is being practiced (NCBI/NIH abstract The Illusion of Safeguards 6/2012). Polite discussions about what to do with unwanted or unhealthy children are now taking place, thanks to the work of ethicists like Princetons Peter Singer and evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, both of whom advance the grisly idea that killing a child is a morally sound decision. Coyne recently put it this way in a blog posting dated July 13th: This change in views about euthanasia and assisted suicide is the result of the tide of increasing morality in the world.

Not to be outdone, Gary Comstock, a philosophy professor at North Carolina State University, wrote about the painful death of his newborn son. After reflecting on his agonizing experience, he decided that the repugnant has become reasonable. The unthinkable has become the right, the good. Painlessly. Quickly. With the assistance of a trained physician You should have killed your baby.

How far into the abyss have we plunged? Just this morning I read a piece in the Palm Beach Post about some teenage boys in Florida who mocked and filmed Jamel Dunn, a 32-year-old disabled man, as he drowned. The more Dunn pleaded for help, the more they mocked. Get out the water, you gonna die one teen can be heard shouting. Another yelled to the man aint nobody fixing to help you, you dumb (expletive).

According to Florida law, the teens hadnt done anything wrong. There may be a statute they violated by not reporting a death, but mocking a dying man and making a video of his ordeal isnt illegal. Is it immoral? It probably is now, but will we get to the point where even things like this will become morally acceptable?

I just finished reading Rod Drehers The Benedict Option A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation. The book is in part a tome and in part an indictment of the modern Christian church. Dreher bores in right away, arguing that the church, which should be a counterforce to secularism, has become content to be the chaplaincy to a consumerist culture that was fast losing a sense of what it meant to be Christian.

Dreher argues that Christians have some very important decisions to make. As a baseline, he cites the work of Scottish philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, who saw that the time was coming when men and women of virtue would understand that continued full participation in mainstream society was not possible for those who wanted to live a life of traditional virtue.

Dreher then argues, quite persuasively, that Christians need to pull away from the rest of society? He calls it the Benedict Option.

I think he may be right.

We conservative Christians need to understand we have lost the culture wars. The question for us is no longer how to stop the wheels of the machine, but rather it is now a question of how those who choose to can live a meaningful, Christian life in such an environment.

The signs of the times all point to one thing. The Christian pilgrimage for many right now is difficult. Our input is neither valued nor wanted. The path is narrow; the light seems dim. Yet, in spite of the difficulties, we need to press on, in our own way. As W.H. Auden put it in his short poem Atlantis, we must:

Stagger onward rejoicing

And even then if, perhaps

Having actually got

To the last col, you collapse

Read more from the original source:
The culture war - Emporia Gazette