Tuesday, June 24, 2014

The Victorian Era, William Morris, and our New Hope. . .

When I think carefully about the times in which we live, I am struck by the similarities that our age shares with Victorian England. This claim might seem, at first glance, to be rather startling. However, further speculation makes this comparison depressingly apt.
            Granted, we are not surrounded by the starving and abused masses that a typical Englishman or woman would have seen on a regular basis in Victorian England. However, for the most part we have simply shifted this huddled mass from our back doors to the so-called “third-world.” Just like there were once thousands of poor wretched souls toiling in Welsh or Yorkshire mines or Lancashire mills, there are now many more thousands of such wretched souls laboring endlessly in mines in Africa or in computer factories in China. Just like the comfort of Bourgeois Victorian families was dependent upon cheap labour and expendable workers, most of our comfort (particularly our obsession with cheap consumer goods) relies on millions of people laboring away somewhere will little hope for the future. This is the material reality of our neo-Victorian lives.
            But we also share important ideological similarities with our Victorian counterparts. The consistency of our socioeconomic system relies heavily on a powerful and significant set of myths about the natural order. While the Victorians propagated the notion that the capitalist order as it was developing was “God-given,” today there is a prevailing belief that the capitalist system flows directly from our “human-nature” and there is no alternative to the existing social and economic relations. Today, despite the fact that our economies are tightly controlled in the interests of large corporations and a small number of extremely wealthy, most people continue to be convinced that the economy is not really something we can control because it must be left to some abstract “market” forces. And like the sad Victorian masses, we have become little more than faceless cogs in an economic machine. There were, of course, important resistance movements in the Victorian era such as the Chartist Movement, the Secular Movement, the IWA, and other socialist or socially minded organizations. But the vast majority of people continued to harbor deep fears of social change and even deeper fears of movements that were striving for social and economic equality. Similarly today, we have major efforts at resistance, and activists work tirelessly to change the prevailing ideology and find socioeconomic alternatives that will ensure greater levels of equality and democracy. But these movements are relatively small, painfully slow, and recently seem to even be losing ground.
            With the use of ideologies, “the masses” seem remarkably easy to repress and oppress. But resistance is like water, it flows through the cracks no matter how people attempt to shore up their ideologies. Some people refuse to be put down and their exuberance bubbles up. Some people thirst for self–expression, for love, for pleasure. They strive to be human rather than lifeless parts of a machine.
            But what form is our resistance to take? This is what the Romantic (Pre-Victorian) Revolt was, in large part, really about. Faced with an increasingly mechanizing, world, that was driving people from their traditional lands and making them mere mechanisms of a bourgeoning capitalism, the Romantic sensibility looked for liberation in the psyche and in the creative imagination. This is particularly true of Keats who saw in the human world something indescribably cruel and painful, and his only escape, his only real resistance, was found in his aesthetic voice. Of course, the fortress of beauty can be cold comfort in the face of human injustice. In the words of E.P. Thompson, for Keats “The beautiful is posed as a remedy for the oppressions of the world: but, in the heat of Keats’ rage, it seemed to him an inadequate remedy, as he cried out for a recourse ‘somewhat human,’ a remedy ‘within the pale of the world.’” But though it is perhaps, at times, woefully inadequate, art can be a genuine form of resistance; a subversive act of humanism in the face of an ideology that strives to continually dehumanize us.
            For Thompson, as for many writers, Keats was perhaps the greatest example of an artist attempting to hold the pain of human existence at bay through the production of beauty. But if the so-called Romantic rebellion was about anything, it was surely about the embracing of hope. In everyday life, Keats had little be hopeful about with his father dying when Keats was young, and family members dying from tuberculosis, a fate that he knew probably awaited him. But in his poetry Keats, to borrow a modern phrase, kept hope alive and this was a great inspiration to those who came after him. However, by the height of the Victorian Era Romanticism itself was dying and with it so was the optimism that some said was at its core.
            We are in a similarly hopeless era. The long post-war boom was (if not a Romantic period) a period of great hopefulness. I don’t know if I can point to any particular artist who was like a modern Keats, looking beyond the great tribulations of life toward a world of pure beauty, but perhaps it matters little now because artists, along with the rest of society, have entered largely into a period of cynicism.
            Again we can turn to E.P. Thompson for a discussion of the end of Romanticism and the rise of cynicism. Thompson uses the great Victorian William Morris as an expression of the death of Romantic hope. Thompson tells us that Morris’ great epic poem (or, more rightly, series of poems) entitled The Earthly Paradise is “the poetry of despair. The extinction of hope in the world around him drove Morris to abandon Keats’ struggle, and the struggle of his own youth, to reconcile his ideals and everyday experience, and he turned his back on the world.” This is a compelling, and somewhat depressing notion, because William Morris, as a primary leader of the Arts and Crafts movement, was a consummate rebel, a man who stood against the mechanization of capitalism in so many ways. The fact is that William Morris, like any person of conscience, fought against his pessimism of spirit with an optimism of will. Like so many of us today, he had lost hope but still worked tirelessly against the dehumanization of Capitalism.
            Ironically, Morris’s The Earthly Paradise was successful, widely read, and praised by reviewers. This is because like so many great works of art, the poem could work on many levels and Morris’ Victorian readers chose to see his poem ostensibly as a series of Romantic stories. Here again we seem to share a great deal with Victorian cynicism. So much art of today could be seen as hopeless resignation of a faltering system of inequality and injustice or even as a cruel indictment of our global economic and social relations – from the Lego Movie to the strange, lyrical books of G.W. Sebald.  But one of the great strengths of capitalism (both today and in the Victorian Era) is its ability to generate what Peter Sloterdijk called “enlightened false-consciousness.” People have an overwhelming sense that the system isn’t working, that the endemic inequalities are wrong, that we are prospering on injustice and pain, but people overlook these problems either because they are just trying to make a decent life in difficult times or because they are genuinely convinced that they can’t do anything about it. Many prosperous and middle-class Victorians who weren’t necessarily politically radical must have known, despite the rhetoric of religion or the spin of ideology, that the system in which they lived was radically unjust and morally reprehensible. However, many (if not most) of those people were caught up in a whirlwind of history and stuck in a psychic place of enlightened false-consciousness. Thus, many Victorians were placated by great artwork or just great entertainments, and many of them surely justified their unjust economic system with the commonplace fact that they were also engaged in bolstering a growing system of fine art and literature which enriched the souls of the citizen in illimitable ways. Similarly, many of our own ultra-rich have followed in these Victorian footsteps and are deeply involved in the arts in important and significant ways. However, I believe that we have gone from the placation offered by arts and crafts, to the mindless stupor offered by modern digital entertainment. In this sense, at least, we are foreign from our Victorian progenitors. We are devoid of hope in ways that the Victorians would have been unable to imagine, but our hopelessness is modified into a vaguely coma-like state of obliquely comforting melancholy.
            However, there is an interesting upshot of at least one part of this story. For many years William Morris sank slowly in hopelessness while he conversely labored away at the so-called ‘Firm,’ his arts and crafts business which, though it serviced an almost exclusively rich clientele, produced remarkably fine works of furniture and art. But when it seemed as though the injustice of society and the haplessness of the human race was just too much to bear, Morris found a new, invaluable sense of hope in the form of socialism.  This is the real rub of the dirty era of industrial exploitation that we call the Victorian Era – it created the very concept of modern socialism. It seems as though if you create enough blatant inequality and injustice, particularly in a society that touts its civilized sophistication and Christian morals, you will unwittingly lead people to the promised land of hope, a hope that is born out of the desire to overthrow (or significantly reform) the very system of injustice that led to the injustice in the first place.
            And it is fitting that an artist like William Morris would look for inspiration in a more hopeful and cooperative future. Because, after all, what is art if not a dream of something better?

            And in this sense, once again, we can be seen to be much like the Victorians – we are faced with a renewed social inequality and a period of hopelessness. But, like Morris, we are feeling a new hope stir inside us. A spectre is haunting modern capitalism – the spectre of hope; a reinvigorating hope for a better society born out of profound inequalities. Since the time of William Morris the traditional arts have almost died out but new arts are taking their place and I believe that artists, being creatures of hope, will surely play a role in the new hope, just has men like Morris did in the Victorian era.


Thursday, June 12, 2014

Berger, School Dress-Codes, and Sexism. . . .

The intent of this blog was not meant to be topical. However, here in Canada there has, of late, been wide-spread talk about school dress-codes and how they affect young women in particular. And since my exposure to women's issues comes in no small part from my encounter with art history it occurred to me that my opinions on this patter have been partially formed by art.

I was lucky, in as much as I grew up in a context in which my mother (and step-mothers) were individuals with careers who did not, relatively speaking, fit into traditional women's roles. As a boy it never would have occurred to me that women were somehow less than men or should not receive the same rights and responsibilities in the work-force or in society in general. However, this attitude was, ironically, somewhat naive because I simply didn't realize, for a very long time, the depth of sexism and gender inequality in our society. My first real understanding began, I think, upon reading the work of John Berger, one of the great art historians of the 20th century. Chapter 3 of Berger's ground-breaking book Ways of Seeing, begins with this passage.

"According to usage and conventions which are at last being questioned but have by no means been overcome, the social presence of a woman is different in kind from that of a man. A man's presence is dependent upon the promise of power which he embodies. If the promise is large and credible his presence is striking. If it is small or incredible, he is found to have little presence. The promise of power may be moral, physical, temperamental, economic, social, sexual - but the object is always exterior to the man. A man's presence suggest what he is capable of doing to you or for you. His presence may be fabricated, in the sense that he pretends to be capable of what he is not. But the pretence is always toward a power which he exercises on others.

By contrast, a woman's presence expresses her own attitude to herself, and defines what can and cannot be done to her. Her presence is manifest in her gestures, voice, opinions, expressions, clothes, chosen surroundings, tastes - indeed there is nothing she can do which does not contribute to her presence. Presence for a woman is so intrinsic to her emanation, a kind o heat or smell or aura. 

To be born a woman has been to be born, within an allotted and confined space, into the keeping of men. The social presence of women has developed as a result of their ingenuity in living under such tutelage within such a limited space. But this has been at the cost of a woman's self being split into two. A woman must continually watch herself. She is almost continually accompanied by her own image of herself. Whilst she is waling across a room or whilst she is weeping at the death of her father, she can scarcely avoid envisaging herself walking or weeping. From the earliest childhood she has been taught and persuaded to survey herself continually." (pages 45-46)

This remarkable passage was a revelation to me when I first read it as an art student, and its significance has grown on me ever since, particularly when I became a father. It made me realize the deep, structural, processes of sexism that are inherent in even our daily, seemingly prosaic actions. And this passage so expertly expresses one of the reasons that school dress-codes are so profoundly objectionable to me. I believe that anyone who imagines that school dress-codes treat girls and boys equally really isn't paying attention. But much more importantly, we must understand that even if school dress-codes were directed and enforced entirely equally in gender terms, their impact is fundamentally sexist. This sexism arises from the fact that, given the historical inequities and the psychological/ideological effects as outlined by Berger above, it is fundamentally different for a young woman to be 'told' what to wear and what not to wear than it is for a young man. For the young woman, such restrictions are a continuation of millennia of physical and psychological control. When a young woman is told that her thighs or her shoulders or her bra-straps are provocative and distracting to men, she is being told once again that she is an object of observation and she once again become an object of her own observation. She is compelled, once again, to survey herself, not as an individual whose presence and power is rooted in her potential for action or achievement, but as an image of gestures and body-parts, and clothes and expressions.

This is not to say that the elimination of dress-codes would magically solve the problems of gender inequality. Young men will, perhaps, always "look" at young women, and it will likely be a very long time before woman are not continually surveying themselves. And I don't believe that there is anything inherently "sexist" about sexual attraction. But if we want our daughters to grow up to be confident women of ability and achievement, we must stop the cycle of observation, surveillance, and control in which they are potentially mere 'distractions' for the male imagination. And this means that we must stop telling them what to wear and how to wear it.

Later in the same passage that I quoted above, Berger writes "one might simplify . . by saying: men act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at. This determines not only most relations between men and women but also the relation of women to themselves. The surveyor woman in herself is male: the surveyed female. Thus she turns herself into an object - and most particularly an object of vision: a sight." I couldn't think of a better expression of what is problematic about school dress-codes and why, regardless of intent, they continue to be fundamentally a reinforcement of gender inequality.