Yes P. I think you may be right. It is one of those revealing facts of our time - the kind of revelation that goes down in history - that when the great clash between civilization and barbarism (or is it simply savagery?) unfolded, it was often those who used a pop culture medium who spoke the civilized truth, while it was those who lived behind ivied walls (notwithstanding that their curriculum was now in good part devoted to pop culture, the dead white males having become a subject only for requisite apotropaic gestures) who betrayed their people, precisely because they thought they had come to live in a world where they had no particular people to defend. Everyone was, supposedly, on the same moral level (at least post-therapy), and in need of being given access to an even though affirmatively diverse playing field where marks of guilt and victimization could be ironed out, in the name of a liberal world order (one that did not and could not really exist except in deluded and cynical minds), and the key distinctions and discriminations were lost, until they arose again from the mists of a cyberworld that does not itself appear to be premised on social discrimination or moral hierarchies. Was it now the case, the historians asked, that the medium was no longer the message?
2 comments:
I love Devereaux's work. He will go down in history.
Yes P. I think you may be right. It is one of those revealing facts of our time - the kind of revelation that goes down in history - that when the great clash between civilization and barbarism (or is it simply savagery?) unfolded, it was often those who used a pop culture medium who spoke the civilized truth, while it was those who lived behind ivied walls (notwithstanding that their curriculum was now in good part devoted to pop culture, the dead white males having become a subject only for requisite apotropaic gestures) who betrayed their people, precisely because they thought they had come to live in a world where they had no particular people to defend. Everyone was, supposedly, on the same moral level (at least post-therapy), and in need of being given access to an even though affirmatively diverse playing field where marks of guilt and victimization could be ironed out, in the name of a liberal world order (one that did not and could not really exist except in deluded and cynical minds), and the key distinctions and discriminations were lost, until they arose again from the mists of a cyberworld that does not itself appear to be premised on social discrimination or moral hierarchies. Was it now the case, the historians asked, that the medium was no longer the message?
Post a Comment