Skip to main content

Perpetrator history

One of the interesting things that happened over the last year was a realization amongst many on the left that perpetrators of considerable power, could be taken down. Even a few years ago, powerhouses like Bill Cosby, Woody Allen, and Ghomeshi (in Canada, he was a superstar) just couldn't be put in the situation, where for crimes of child abuse and rape, they could actually lose their power and be sundered to prison. If you were one of their victims, you could feel that the collective need to keep them vital would mean some means would be found to silence your cause -- your protests would have no chance: even many liberals wouldn't speak up for you -- what presumption, you! Your best salve would be to try not to read the next biography about them, which would surely gloss over any accusations made against them and salute them as great men. But this year, you could feel that somehow this was changing ... that now empathy for victims was such that more people registered the harm these men had done and saw them not as greats under (unfair) assault but more and more as vile perpetrators. An example is Lena Dunhams' estimation of not just Allen but his work, experiencing the child-molester in his films that previously the left had only kept on the shelf, proudly, as identity/class-markers. 

Something similar, I think, is happening now in relation to history. The number of times Pinker's book has been referenced, along now with "the Moral Arc," is astonishing. Pinker, as I've mentioned before, doesn't say that modern wo/man is constitutionally different people from living a thousand years ago, but does argue that societies have become less and less violent across the time. "The Moral Arc" comes closer to saying that people themselves have changed, and much for the better. This is not done in a climate of blaming early societies, castigating them, but they evidently aren't working to nevertheless bulwark the past against modern judgment, as historians were once so capable of doing. 

People influenced by these works aren't so much arguing that we have to careful when we judge people living before us, because they were only living according to what they knew -- and mightn't we overselves find ourselves judged by historians in the future? -- but rather arguing that since the past as it turns out is full of perpetrating, sexist, immoral bastards -- even the best, the most liberal, of its greats, were sexist a-holes or the like, and that includes the like of its women, people like Virginia Woolf! -- the last thing we would actually want is spend time with them. If you want a sample of this reaction, check out this article at No "Midnight in Paris, " rather, You would've hated your heroes

History is becoming, to more and more of the informed, a bit akin to DeMause's "nightmare we are just waking up from," but one's association with it, one's protection and support of it, not as innocent as this phrasing might imply/allow. If you choose to enter the past, you're choosing to associate with a room chock-full of repellent Bill Cosbys, Ghomeshis, Woody Allens, and Adrian Petersons. There is no difference in what you're doing than if you chose, now, knowing what we know of him, to nevertheless still go see Bill Cosby's latest comedy performance, arguing that he's still got it! 

I've never myself like the term psychohistory. I've always wanted to drop the history part of it, and said as much to DeMause. History is nightmare! Why the hell are we latching ourselves to it! I wonder if in the new climate that might be emerging if more and more young progressive minds will refuse to abide his decision, and study his innovative workings on child abuse and society, on how widespread parental rejection is the most profound factor in adults choosing to vote in politicians that curb growth, on the emotional life of nations, in some venue spared its beloved "psycho" being latched to the abhorrent perpetrating sex-fiend -- history. 

[Originally posted at Clio's History.]


Popular posts from this blog

Superimposing another "fourth-wall" Deadpool

I'd like to superimpose the fourth-wall breaking Deadpool that I'd like to have seen in the movie. In my version, he'd break out of the action at some point to discuss with us the following:
1) He'd point out that all the trouble the movie goes to to ensure that the lead actress is never seen completely naked—no nipples shown—in this R-rated movie was done so that later when we suddenly see enough strippers' completely bared breasts that we feel that someone was making up for lost time, we feel that a special, strenuous effort has been made to keep her from a certain fate—one the R-rating would even seemed to have called for, necessitated, even, to properly feed the audience expecting something extra for the movie being more dependent on their ticket purchases. That is, protecting the lead actress was done to legitimize thinking of those left casually unprotected as different kinds of women—not as worthy, not as human.   

2) When Wade/Deadpool and Vanessa are excha…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…