Current U.S. Culture Wars Plus An Age-Old Controversy

 Readers interested in what appear to be intensifying culture wars within the U.S. -- specifically over whether "Whiteness" should be toppled, but other issues as well -- are strongly encouraged to read "Blind to Hate or Sounding the Right Notes?" in the Oct. 15, 2021 issue of the Arts section of the New York Times.

The lengthy article also brings up an age-old controversy: whether a work of intellect or art stands independently on its own merits, or whether the merits of it's creator need to be taken into consideration when deciding it's worth.

For example, see "Is It Time Gaugin Got Canceled?" in Nov. 18, 2019 New York Times.

But back to current culture wars, this time centered on a University of North Texas professor of music theory named Timothy Jackson and his chief critic, Philip Ewell, a professor of music theory at Hunter College in New York City,  Jackson is white and Ewell is Black (I'm following the NYT here in that the word "white" when referring to racial identity is not capitalized while "black" is.)

In Ewell's view, music criticism generally is dominated by white males and beset by racism, the NYT reported, and nowhere more egregiousness so than by the work of a Jewish theorist named Heinrich Schenker who died in Austria in 1935.  Jackson, identified as the grandson of Jewish emigres, has, the NYT said, has devoted himself to the study of Schenker's work.

In response to Ewell's views, Jackson and some colleges decided to solicit a series of papers on the  controversy for publication in the "Journal of Schenkerian Studies," which boasts about 30 paid subscribers, the NYT said, and a veritable volcano erupted. Read the article for details.

As for culture wars, the central battle covered by the article is yet another front in the ongoing war over whether not just the U.S. but, indeed, all of Western Civilization, is simply one big racist abomination  that needs to be overturned. In that context, Powell contends that when it comes to the study of music, Ancient Greek, Latin, Italian, French and German should be prohibited except by special dispensation in specific instances.  One wonders how English made the cut,

But also at issue is what the article descried as a contention by Jackson that Ewell's position is illustrative of a much broader current of anti-Semitic attitudes of American Blacks. 

Free speech -- an increasingly controversial topic in the wake of silencing Trump -- also comes into question in the Jackson-Ewell flap.  The traditional notion that speech should be free particularly on college campuses competes with a "newer view that speech itself can constitute violence," the NYT article said. In other words, things may be moving beyond concerns over "micro aggressions"  into justifications for censorship -- on both the Right and the Left.

Lastly, there is that issue of what to think about the products of intellectuals and artists who have lived arguably reprehensible lives or expressed arguably reprehensible opinions.

Schenker, for instance, is on record as having referred to "inferior races" and worse -- views that, in Ewell's opinion, are inseparable from his apparently very significant contributions to music theory. The counter view is that the theories should stand on their own merits.

The answer apparently isn't easy as per the comment of an NYT reader identified as "Lisa" (from Boston) who says:

"I have a doctorate in music and while I have always been aware of Wagner's well-known antisemitism (just to name an example) I was required to understand and utilize Schenkerian theory on my comps--and it was not until this controversy came to light that I was even *aware* that Schenker was a racist. To the point, it is up to the individual to decide what to do with information once it is known. But it NEEDS to be known. When it's not, it is indeed what Ewell says it is: whitewashing."

In "Lisa's" case, Schenker's work clearly stood on it's own when she needed it academically, but ... 

 

Should a Work of Art Stand Apart From It's Creator?

In the previous post, I wrote about one aspect of a New York Times interview of black American author Alice Walker, whose most highly regarded book, "The Color Purple," while controversial, is generally considered solidly within the American literary canon -- along with titles such as "To Kill a Mocking Bird" (which I will turn to shortly), "The Great Gatsby" and "Catcher in the Rye." It won Pulitzer and National Book Award prizes in 1983.

The topic of this post is whether one does, or should, think less of "The Color Purple" if one comes to believe that Ms Walker has anti-Semitic leanings.

Or no matter how reprehensible the creator of a work of art may be, should the object -- in this case a work of fiction -- stand on its own once it has been launched into the realm of the public?

Similarly, should one revise one's views on the merits of "To Kill a Mockingbird" in the wake of the publication of "Go Set a Watchman?"

Arguably, "Watchman," written first, but released 55 years later, was turned into the far more morally uplifting "Mockingbird" over a two-year period with the extensive help of an editor looking for something that would be a lot more saleable.

"I was a first-time writer so I did as I was told," Lee said in 2015, explaining the evolution of her first draft, which depicted the key character, Atticus Finch, as a bigot, into "Mockingbird" where the same man was depicted as determined to see that all races were treated the same, in a court of law at any rate.

Did Lee sacrifice the truth (Finch was based in large part on her father) for fame and profit? Or is the truth not what fiction is all about?

The question is particularly pertinent in the case of "Mockingbird" because the novel has been required reading for vast numbers of American schoolchildren over the years since its publication. Is that because it is just a good yarn, or is it because it is viewed as having a message children should absorb? If the latter, should they now be made acquainted with "Watchman" as well?

These are questions I ask friends from time to time and the answers suggest that people want to find reasons to preserve things they personally like, and are far more willing to devalue things they personally don't like.  So far, there does not appear to be a dispassionate single answer.

(I've also written about "Mockingbird" and "Watchman" in earlier posts, which readers can find here and here.)

You Are What You Read As Much As What You Eat

Most readers are probably familiar with the expression "you are what you eat."  It can be taken either literally or figuratively: that the biochemical composition of your body changes on the basis of what you consume (possibly affecting your health), or that your diet reflects your values -- not eating meat because it is wrong to slaughter animals, rather than because it may be unhealthy.

Alternatively, perhaps you are what you read. That, at least is the opinion of one New York Times editor who, not surprisingly, deals with books.

At the moment, The Times is embroiled in a controversy over a recent "By the Book" column in which black American author Alice Walker, who most notably wrote "The Color Purple," is said to have exhibited anti-Semitism. This is because she listed as being on her bookstand a 1995 book by David Icke called "And the Truth Shall Set You Free" that includes material suggesting that a small Jewish elite, contemptuous of the Jewish masses, was responsible for the Holocaust.

Walker, whose only marriage was to a white Jewish lawyer, has been viewed as anti-Semitic on other occasions, in part because she has refused to allow "The Color Purple" to be translated into Hebrew on the grounds that Israel practices a form of apartheid with respect to the Palestinians.

In any event, Pamela Raul, editor of The Times' book review section, said Walker was chosen for an interview because that particular week's section was devoted to poetry and politics.

"She is both a poet and someone known to be very political in her work," Raul said, explaining that The Times does not choose people to interview on the basis of the views that they hold.

"If people espouse beliefs that anyone at The Times finds to be dangerous or immoral, it's important for readers to be aware that they hold those beliefs. The public deserves to know, That's news," the editor said. "The intention of By the Book is to be a portrait of someone through his or her reading life. What people choose to read or not read and what books they find to be influential or meaningful say a lot about who they are."

In other words, you are what you read as much or more than you are what you eat.

It's an interesting idea in part because if one is writing fiction -- and particularly fiction that doesn't rely heavily on plot -- the question of how one builds character is always present.

Social Change: More on the Rise of Tribalism

I recently wrote a post on the rise of tribalism in the U.S.  Here's a bit more on that topic.

On Nov. 4, the New York Times published in its paper edition a piece by Ginia Bellafante entitled "Is it Safe to be Jewish in New York?"

The story related recent incidents of anti-Semitism and then went on to observe that for several years, expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment have made up the preponderance of hate crime complaints in the city. According to the NY police department, anti-Semitic incidents have accounted for half of all hate crimes this year, or four times as many as against blacks.

Where is this coming from?  Generally speaking, right-wing, non-Jewish whites sympathetic with Nazi policies tend to be the leading suspects based on the history of such incidents in the U.S. over many years.  But that doesn't seem to be the case in NY at present.

If anti-Semitism bypasses consideration as a serious problem in New York, it is to some extent because it refuses to conform to an easy narrative with a single ideological enemy, Belefante wrote.

"During the past 22 months, not one person caught or identified as the aggressor in an ant-Semitic hate crime has been associated with a far right-wing group, Mark Molinari, commanding officer of the Police Department's Hate Crimes task force, told me," the NYT writer said. "I almost wish it was more clear cut," he (Molinari) was quoted as saying. "It's every identity targeting every identity," he told Belefante.

Every identity targeting every identity is mark of increasing tribalism, one could argue.