“Ethical Spectacles”?
From Grand Theft Politics: Should Democrats look to video games for inspiration? -
In a new book, _Dream_, NYU media professor and political activist Stephen Duncombe laments that progressives have become … well, tedious. The people who built the New Deal and led the civil rights struggle are now engaging in old-fashioned, top-down political practices.
…
If progressives ever want to set the national agenda, Duncombe insists, they must embrace what he calls dreampolitik, a politics that “embraces the dreams of people and fashions spectacles which give these fantasies form.” With the exception of street activists at the far fringes—he praises Billionaires for Bush, Critical Mass, and Reverend Billy and the Church of Stop Shopping—progressives remain convinced that “their sense of superior seriousness will win debates, convince the public, and lead them back into the halls of power.” Talk about fantasy! Witness the last presidential race, when stagecrafted spectacles that associated President Bush with military prowess trumped the sober-sided efforts of John Kerry to win debates and votes.
…
How can progressives invent a political process that figuratively and literally involves us?
Duncombe’s answer is something he calls the “ethical spectacle.” Unlike the unethical kind of spectacle, which conceals a rotten state of affairs, and which demands passivity and acquiescence from spectators, an ethical spectacle promotes progressive ideals of egalitarianism and inclusivity. It models at the level of form what progressive politicians promise in the content of their speeches: demonstrating the ideals of its participants, none of whom are relegated to the role of sign-toting spectator. Duncombe, slipping into hortatory mode, makes some grand predictions about the progressive movement of the future: “Our spectacles will be participatory: dreams the public can mold and shape themselves,” he claims. “And they will be transparent: dreams that one knows are dreams but which still have power to attract and inspire.” This is not a wake-up call—what Duncombe asks of progressives is to dream better.
What do you make of this idea of “ethical spectacles”? I’m confused by this idea. Isn’t the idea of a “participatory spectacle” a contradiction in terms?
Last night, I went to the Minnesota Twins’ opening game. (They won - go Twins!) But through much of the game I felt neauseated by the extreme commercialism of the ballpark. I couldn’t look anywhere without seeing an advertisement for some stupid commodity - sausage, health insurance, beer, trucks, american flags. In reaction to this perhaps “unethical spectacle,” I participated in a little “dreampolitik” in which I imagined every one of the 58,000 people in the audience getting out of their seats, marching out of the Metrodome, walking to the poorest neighborhoods in the city, and talking with the people on welfare, the recent immigrants from Somalia - just getting to know each other, asking how they could help each other make their lives a little better - building a community that could span from the inner city to the suburbs. But that’s just a dream… The most ethical spectacle that really happened, the best part of the game, was when in the ninth inning, a drunken fan ran onto the field, and the crowd cheered him on as he taunted the security guards chasing him around the field, until they tackled him.
April 3rd, 2007 20:00
and I thought you were just watching the baseball game.
April 3rd, 2007 20:56
I have read a lot of “process” stuff since 2001. Progressives should do this or that. Aside from the implementation problems of these kinds of articles (progressives are a loosely associated group with no central leadership and no ability to change they way they do things) I think that discussing what we should do to inspire people or convince people to come around to our “right” misses a key part of that plan: the people. I have canvassed in the poorest neighborhoods in Denver, Elise teaches in the poorest neighborhood in the bay area. I have also knocked on doors in the richest neighborhood in Denver. That experience (and I was knocking on democratic, likely voter doors) taught me that most people just don’t care much about the grand progressive dream.
I may be wrong, and Eli’s vision of the ethical spectacle is nice, but it will always just be a dream because politics rarely inspires but a tiny minority of people. That’s why politics will always be an ugly, dirty fight between activist extremes. And that’s why “centrist” visions are absurd because no one is a centrist. Centrists are actually people who aren’t paying attention. In the end when it comes to social change, elections and the rest I tend to think that those of us who care may just have to drag everyone else along with us.
April 7th, 2007 15:12
I disagree with Steve’s assertion that all centrists are politically naive or indifferent. There are a lot of very intelligent, informed people who understand that political problems, and their solutions, are not as simple as the vocal extremes make them out to be. Which is not to say that there are not a lot of people who don’t give a shit; I’ve had similar experiences knocking on doors in Vancouver. But don’t assume that only progressives are outraged by trends in poverty, civil liberties, and environmental impact. We just don’t all agree on what the solutions to those problems are.
As the original post, I think what is meant by “ethical spectacle” is something like the Montgomery Bus Boycott or the Salt Satyagraha. It’s about making a statement with actions rather than words — by just doing what needs to be done rather than appealing to someone else to do something. Perhaps the best contemporary example is Howard Dean’s campaign for President.