Who the hell do you think I want to be?

[imomus]

As a general rule, British and American people idolize their own culture's richest, most famous and successful members, whereas the French idolize exotic foreign "others" -- the poorer, obscurer and further away the better. Or do I mean the lower middle classes of Britain, France and America worship bling and glitz, whereas the upper middle classes of those nations like documentaries about "unspoiled" ways of life? Yes, that's partly what I mean too.

There are clear cultural differences in attitudes to "the other". I see them daily in the editorial and textural differences between the cable TV stations I get. CNN and the BBC (while also somewhat different from each other -- the BBC has a slightly more "anthropological" approach) are basically financial, logistical, empirical, developmental and moral in their approach to the third world. French networks like TV5 and Arte, on the other hand, present long documentaries focused on "the art of living", on ways of being, on the aesthetic, the ethical and the textural. Whereas Anglo-media tends to portray traditional society as a deeply problematical zone of suffering, backwardness, poverty and oppression, Euro-media is more likely to ply the viewer with rich images of exoticism; to celebrate the otherness of the other rather than try to reduce it.

Anglo-Saxon coverage of the third world focuses on its difference as a kind of misery, whereas European coverage focuses on it as a kind of happiness. As a result, Anglo-Saxon policy (including Angrael's current multi-pronged war) is guided by a misapprehension: the idea that the "developing world" wants nothing more than to become like us. The more ambivalent European attitude is that we should make cultural "exchanges" with traditional societies, and, in some cases, become more like them. This attitude appalls the Angraeli right, who turn it into visions of a "Eurabia" where an "Islamofascist other" dominates white Europeans and converts them into "dhimmis"; tame, passive aphids.

I feel at home with the French attitude to Africa, Asia, the Middle East. And I feel increasingly alienated from -- and repulsed by -- the Anglo culture's focus on celebrity and aspiration. I locate the menace of fascism in bling-glitz culture, not in "Islamofascism". Comedian Bill Bailey has a funny line summing up the weirdly mixed British attitudes to bling-glitz: "We have this strange conflict, where we simultaneously say 'I want to be you' and 'Who do you think you are?', leaving us with a strange loop of 'Who do you think I want to be?'" It's a question the "developing world" is increasingly asking the West.

"Who do you think you are?" is what remains of the British interest in egalitarianism and fair play; let's cut down the mighty. "I want to be you" is a more recent meritocratic and Nietzschean American import of glitz-aspiration culture. The two impulses are at war in Britain (or do I mean in the lower middle classes?). In France, this deadly mix of envy and admiration is avoided. The attitude seems to be: "We are the French, and we are rich compared to these people in Mali. But they can teach us much about l'art de vivre. And above all, they are not the Americans, those vulgar imperialistic puritans."

The English Channel has always been much wider than its physical distance (less than thirty miles in places), but right now it feels positively oceanic, dividing, as it does, Angrael from the Eurozone.

Have a look at ShowStudio's Amaze Me microsite. Amaze Me is a competition organized by Sony Playstation Portable to motivate young people to be more creative. Mentors have been selected in various cities across Europe to issue challenges to young people, and judge the results. A short video clip sets a theme. You can watch these clips by city. Now, if I watch Berlin or Antwerp's mentors, I recognize people who think and feel very much as I do.

For instance, Droog Design's challenge to design ways that young people, who don't have much money, can optimize their very small living spaces seems deeply humane to me. The London mentors, on the other hand, prioritize bling and glitz. "Think of yourself as a brand," recommends hideous advertising man Graham Fink. "There are 60 million people in this country, what makes you so special? Why should I pick you over everyone else?" There it is, the image of a society of struggle, mutual hostility and competition in which everyone tries to profit at the expense of everyone else. Texturally too, Fink is creepy, with a stupid hairstyle and glinty, hostile eyes.

Or take Sarah Doukas. Her dyed blonde "I love money" hairstyle beats her to the point she spells out when she begins to speak: she's discovered "many of the world's most international models... in the most ordinary places". It's the exact opposite of the Droog Design approach. Creativity isn't about improving the lot of ordinary people, but about plucking a few lucky contenders out of the shitheap and giving them a chance to become celebrities.

An article in The Observer on Sunday repeated the bling-glitz trope. Rachel Dickens, an osteopath from Fulham, is one of an increasing number of Brits to go to live in France. "Her client list from the yachting set reads like the contents of Grazia magazine. She can't namedrop for reasons of confidentiality - 'I'd love to tell people, "Guess who I saw in their pants today!" but I can't. Let's just say that it's rock stars, pop gods, supermodels, royalty - some of the richest people in the world. As well as hairdressers and gardeners and office workers.'"

Rachel at least seems to be veering slightly away from the Anglo glitz-bling mindset. In France, she seems relatively open to the idea of changing her way of living and thinking: "If you arrive and expect everything to be run the way you're used to, then of course you're going to antagonise people. Who wants a foreigner telling them what to do? You have to relax, learn the culture, accept how things happen. "Just because it's different doesn't mean it's wrong." That's a phrase I repeat to myself a lot.'"

Different isn't wrong; it's a start. It's safe to say, though, that she probably isn't yet tuning in to Arte Radio's Creations cartes postales, textural and exoticist sound postcards from Istanbul ("between minaret and demonstration, in the fabric ateliers, the souk and the café"), Burkina Faso, Niger and Mali. She's probably not quite in that European place -- whether it's a cultural or a class place -- where people who not only aren't Americans and aren't celebrities, but are actually poorer than you are, have something to teach you about how you could live your life. That place where the answer to the developing world's "Who the hell do you think I want to be?" is no longer answered by the Western "Me!"

Comments

[imomus.livejournal.com]

See, this is the problem with Western media reports, they shrink each country down to one or two problems. Iran is only its nuclear program. Burkina Faso is only forced labour and sex trafficking.

I'll tell you what's in the Arte postcard, since you refuse to listen to it. Life going on. Birdsong, motorbikes, a creaking door, human voices speaking French, a snatch of music, traffic police whistles, a child talking, a car horn, people in a market speaking French, the sounds of a workshop, drumming with a man singing over the top... Other things than "problems".

[bricology.livejournal.com]

"'ll tell you what's in the Arte postcard, since you refuse to listen to it. Life going on. Birdsong, motorbikes, a creaking door, human voices speaking French, a snatch of music, traffic police whistles, a child talking, a car horn, people in a market speaking French, the sounds of a workshop, drumming with a man singing over the top... Other things than "problems"."

Well, I listened to it, and it was charming. But I think your mistake is to presume that it couldn't've been just as easily made in the US as France or anywhere else. It seems to me that you're selecting artifacts and conflating them with cultures. Does France have fewer "problems" than the US? Or is it more likely that France merely has less global influence at the moment than the US? Because when France was in the "nation building" business (read: the past 4 or 5 centuries), they would've fit the role you're assigning to the US to a tee. I can't shake the feeling that you're going bogeyman hunting, and the US is the obvious candidate.

Regarding the earlier post: your assignment of guilt to American people (or rather, to those of European descent) is more evidence of bogeymanning. Consider Sudan. Right now, there are hundreds of thousands of black slaves, enslaved by other blacks. Do the "noble savages" not deserve the "massive amount of guilt" you so liberally loaded on Americans? Perhaps if you look at the area's history, you'll notice that, until 50 years ago, Sudan was a British colony. Maybe _that's_ the commonalty among the colonies, and the source of all this oppression and guilt: Great Britain's rule? Or is the bogeyman in your closet less comforting than the bogeyman in Washington?

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Does France have fewer "problems" than the US?

I think you may have misunderstood the argument. I'm talking about the different ways Euro and Anglo countries frame the developing world in their media. The Anglo world tends to say: "the developing world has a problem, and its problem is its difference from us, How do we solve that problem?" By reducing difference to a problem (in other words, by cutting "the good difference" out of the picture) the Anglo world sets up all sorts of dangers, for who's to say it won't destroy the good stuff it leaves out of its account when it tries to solve the "problem"?

[(Anonymous)]

If that's your discussion, then I don't see you getting any closer to identifying the problem. That position dismisses a huge factor: that of the developing world _desiring_ to be like the West. Look at Japan immediately after it was opened to the West. The Meiji Restoration put into place Western institutions like our legal and constitutional systems; huge improvements over the feudal serfdom of the Shogunate. The Japanese people looked at the West, with its technological superiority, freedoms and prosperity (and exotic-ness, to be sure), and willingly changed many elements of their culture to be more like the West.

This pattern is played out again and again in the developing world. While I'm in no way condoning nation-building (particularly the way the Bush Administration goes about it), it's almost inevitable that the people of developing nations end up becoming increasingly Westernized. Why is that? I submit that it has far more to do with the superiority of Western freedoms, institutions and technologies than "Fleet Street diplomacy" or other media coercion.

Most people in developing nations would prefer to have a car over carrying their goods on foot, would prefer living in a vermin-tight, weather-tight house with electricity and indoor plumbing over whatever they had before, would prefer refrigerators and televisions and computers and washing machines and anesthesia and antibiotics and and secure banks and asphalt roads and democracy and sexual equality and habeas corpus and so on, rather than what they had before. These are generally what they WANT. Need I point out that these are all Western inventions?

I wonder if what you're really objecting to (other than the US bogeyman) is the loss of the "noble savage", and its more immediate counterpart--the loss of some charming non-European exoticism. Your many mentions of your neighborhood souks, etc., makes your appreciation for such things clear. Having lived for a year in a predominantly Turkish/Moroccan neighborhood in Rotterdam gives me some insight into that situation. From my observation, the qualities that make such things appealingly exotic to Westerners is mostly on the surface, and each subsequent generation becomes more Westernized by choice. The Turks and Moroccans under 40 in my neighborhood drove BMWs and Mercedes, dressed from H&M and other Western shops, listened to rap and French pop, and many of them had ethnically Dutch girlfriends or wives. I doubt they needed any media pressure to become Westernized. They couldn't Westernize fast enough, and I doubt many of them regret the transformation. Perhaps the grass is always more colorful on the other side of the border.

As for the West "destroy(ing) the good stuff it leaves out of its (media) account when it tries to solve the 'problem'"--I suggest that the West is far more likely to deal with such issues with sensitivity than any other culture, at least nowadays. That's a good by-product of Western access to information, which allows organizations to defend and preserve things that are threatened. Consider the American environmental movement--one of the most active and successful in the world. It's not controlled by the government or the media, but rather by concerned individuals with access to the information that enables them.

Finally, I would point out that no culture or nation is immune to "destroying the good stuff". Who destroyed thousands of priceless Buddhist artifacts in Afghanistan, over the strenuous objections of Westerners? That would've been the anti-Western Afghani Taliban. And consider Iromote Island. Unspoilt until a few years ago, a consortium of Japanese business interests has now built a huge resort on the island, and the 360,000 tourists drawn to it are now threatening the already endangered wild cats and tortoises indigenous to the island. Who is at fault here? Is it the West and its media? Or is it the real bogeyman behind all of the problems you've been hinting at--namely the greed of a few powerful people, irrespective of their culture or ethnicity?

[bricology.livejournal.com]

Crap. That was me; forgot to sign in on my studio's computer.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Well, why not allow the ambiguity the comedian's original formulation stand? "Who do you think I want to be?" Which contains both wanting to be someone, and wanting to challenge that someone at the same time. I believe it's this ambiguity, rather than the inevitable convergence you portray, that sums up how the developing world feels. Remember that economic migrants are only something like 3%; most people stay at home.

I'd also say that it's ecologically impossible for everyone in the world to have the quality of life enjoyed by Americans right now. It would take six planet Earths (http://imomus.livejournal.com/2006/07/11/) to provide them with enough materials and energy. We who have outsized ecological footprints need to learn from those (in places like Africa and China) who don't.

And I'd add that what people want doesn't always line up with what they need. In a world of inequality, wants are often determined by a sense of "relative deprivation": "I want what he has!" rather than "I want what I need". I'd be very wary of letting the world be run by jealousy as its main structuring principle.

[bricology.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm well aware that--even if it's just China whose population manages to achieve the same sort of lifestyle as is already enjoyed by middle-class Americans--we're headed for a global ecological nightmare (I mean in addition to the one we're already facing).

My observations in the developing world, while somewhat limited compared to yours perhaps, haven't suggested to me that it is populated with those who feel ambiguous about Westernization, but rather by those who feel confliction. They want what they want, and I'd argue that most of them want what they see as a better life, and use the West as the most accurate example of that life--at least materially. They aren't going to take a Westerner telling them that they want the wrong things very seriously, and they aren't reading this blog.

You and I and most people reading this have the luxury of slow food, laptops, international travel, the First Amendment, and a host of other good things that we tend to take for granted. But most people in developing nations have to work their asses off just to survive in whatever grim environments they were born and are likely to die. We're not in our fortunate position because we earned it, we're here because we were lucky enough to have been born in societies where a lot of the heavy lifting was done by previous generations. That's why America is such a magnet to the world; if it could contain them, probably half of the world's population would gladly move here to take advantage of the things we already have. And they'd doubtless become fully Westernized.

"And I'd add that what people want doesn't always line up with what they need. In a world of inequality, wants are often determined by a sense of "relative deprivation": 'I want what he has!' rather than 'I want what I need'."

No doubt. But what is your solution? Restricting the freedom of the press and of businessed to present the traditional trappings of success in a favorable way in the media? Restricting people in developing nations from owning cars? You say "I'd be very wary of letting the world be run by jealousy as its main structuring principle" as if it weren't already the case, and as if there was something that could be done to remedy it that wouldn't inevitably trample all over a number of basic rights. I really don't think you're going to find many people here (myself included) who are likely to disagree with your basic premise here, but all you've done is ask an hereditary elite a rather pat philosophical question.

I don't want to be offensive, because I like you and your work, and I find your lifestyle interesting, but it seems to me as if most of your political posts could be reduced to this: "this is the way things should and could be, if only America weren't the world's superpower". You then support your polemical assertion du jour with a combination of rosy-glassed views of non-Western examples and philosophical sloganeering. Obviously it's your blog and you will post whatever you want, but I find your posts about your life and art FAR more interesting, and wish you'd do more of them. But, as you've pointed out, the art posts result in fewer responses than your political/philosophical posts. Perhaps Technorati rankings are a factor?

[kementari2.livejournal.com]

Let's not forget, though, that Nick doesn't take the First Amendment for granted at all! Bring on that prohibition of the free exercise of religion, isn't that right?

[imomus.livejournal.com]

The interesting thing is, I think what I do in the "political posts" overlaps quite substantially with the "art posts". You may notice two things going on in this "political post":

1. I'm directing people to listen to Arte Radio pieces, recorded in third world countries, which are entirely textural.

2. I'm making explicit connections between people's "textural" self-presentation and their political views: "Texturally too, Fink is creepy, with a stupid hairstyle and glinty, hostile eyes. Or take Sarah Doukas. Her dyed blonde "I love money" hairstyle beats her to the point she spells out when she begins to speak." The juxtaposition of the CNN screenshots with traditional African women is also deliberate: that's about an interest in the different use of colour, fabric, and form in America and in Africa. This "texture of politics" stuff is an ongoing concern of mine. It relates to the Gladwell "Blink" idea. I think I want to ask "Should I trust my aesthetic revulsion against certain things or people as a highly intuitive yet highly accurate political barometer?" This point also relates to my mistrust of language: I can recognize the inherent yukness of CNN with the sound down better than I can with the sound up. But Momus, you should learn to speak English so that you realize CNN is actually quite good!

3. The "art posts" themselves often concern art which is making very much the same critiques I'm making here. They just do it less verbally, and less explicitly. My post on Tropico-Vegetale, for instance, at the Palais de Tokyo in Paris. That show "snubs" North America by focusing on South America and on environmentalism. Even the Whitney Biennial I spent three months of the year in this year proposed itself, quite explicitly, as a "post-American" biennial, and raised many of the same issues about the US no longer being an "Enlightenment" nation or a model for the world that got raised in the discussion here in the last 24 hours. I think that if this stuff annoys you, and you're interested in the world of art and culture, "you can run, but you can't hide"!

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Ah, I want also to say: if I'm right about the class element involved here -- that lower middle class or working class people are into bling and upper middles are into more post-materialist things (documentaries about noble poor people etc), then we can envision a cycle by which everybody in the world, one by one, goes through a cycle of enrichment followed by disillusionment as they discover that money and material possessions don't make you happy or fulfilled, and that they threw away more than they gained when they abandoned traditional practises. But this scenario is unrealistic; environmentally and economically, not everybody can go through that cycle of disillusionment themselves. It's up to those of us who've become "post-materialists" to tell the rest: "Don't bother, it's not all it's cracked up to be. You are beautiful."

[(Anonymous)]

"a cycle of enrichment followed by disillusionment as they discover that money and material possessions don't make you happy or fulfilled, and that they threw away more than they gained when they abandoned traditional practises."

Or this, from a Firesign Theatre bit:

(Gameshow winner) "B-but...this is a bag of shit!"
(Unctuous host) "Yes, but it's REALLY GREAT SHIT!"

--2fs

[bricology.livejournal.com]

Of course, there's bound to be some overlap here and there between art and politics in your posts; that's to be expected--especially given how so much contemporary art is politicized, and how much politics impacts the art world. Your "art posts" that have a political subtext are fine with me. What I find tiresome are these overtly political threads that seem to me to be generating a lot of heat and very little light. But that's just my opinion, and you can dismiss it if you like; I won't be offended.

"I'm making explicit connections between people's 'textural' self-presentation and their political views: 'Texturally too, Fink is creepy, with a stupid hairstyle and glinty, hostile eyes'. Or take Sarah Doukas. Her dyed blonde 'I love money' hairstyle beats her to the point she spells out when she begins to speak'."

I find that connection tenuous at best, and frankly I also find it rather unseemly. Is this really the sort of criticism you want to be known for? Pointing out "stupid hairstyles"? Let we who are without any stylistic foibles cast the first stones. And let's not get so seduced by texture that we forget that some of the most sinister things are the most texturally appealing, and that some of the most salubrious things have the worst texture. I understand that "this 'texture of politics' stuff is an ongoing concern" of yours, but I think that if its applied too casually, too widely, it becomes pointless.

"I think that if this stuff annoys you, and you're interested in the world of art and culture, 'you can run, but you can't hide'!"

Yes, yes, but believe me--I try to run and hide! I loathe the overt politicization of contemporary art, as much as I loathe identity politics as art. One produces propaganda, the other, self-indulgent whining. Again, it's only my opinion. However, I have yet to see any evidence that a pithy installation about the struggles of a transgendered, self-mutilating Ruritanian artist ever saved the rain forests of Brazil or caused Dick Cheney to mend his ways.

As for "the US no longer being an 'Enlightenment' nation: that has neither been demonstrated nor is it likely to be so in this forum. Claims of such don't so much annoy me as they demonstrate the bogeyman effect, and lessen my respect for your ability to distinguish between the policies of a few in power in Washington, and the character of tens of millions of Americans who've done nothing to deserve such contempt from you. I'm not normally one to quote Bryan Appleyard, but his essay "Why Do They Hate America?" (http://www.loyno.edu/~wagues/9-11_appleyard.html) addresses what seem to me to be many of your complaints about the US. I'd be curious to hear your opinion of the essay (at least in regards to your objections to America).

[atarashi.livejournal.com]

"That's why America is such a magnet to the world; if it could contain them, probably half of the world's population would gladly move here to take advantage of the things we already have. And they'd doubtless become fully Westernized."

bit of a tangent here but i disagree with this statement.

first of all, coming from an asian country that has an admittedly huge love affair with the West in so many aspects, i can vouch for the fact that while people may, superfically, think that they want to live in America/the West because of the reasons u state, but deep down inside they hold quite contradictory ideas about the West (for every 'America is good because of xxx' there's an equal opposing sentiment of 'America is bad because of xxx'). there is certainly a conflict between the idea of America being all-embracing, land of opportunity etc, and the idea of America being xenophobic, bad to foreigners, 'they won't understand us' etc... although nobody seems to acknowledge this here.

second of all there is no such thing as becoming fully westernised, in the first place the process of 'westernisation' is so hard to pin down and define properly - consumption of western products? belief in western idea(l)s? but democracy activists in china who drink starbucks are not any less Chinese or Eastern...

[bricology.livejournal.com]

"...but deep down inside they hold quite contradictory ideas about the West (for every 'America is good because of xxx' there's an equal opposing sentiment of 'America is bad because of xxx')"

Of course. That's why I said that they weren't ambiguous, but conflicted.

"second of all there is no such thing as becoming fully westernised, in the first place the process of 'westernisation' is so hard to pin down and define properly"

True enough. What I should've said is that immigrants tend to become as Westernized _as_possible_, in that they assume many of the values of the West, such as meritocratic principles, a laissez-faire attitude, heterodoxy, etc.

"...democracy activists in china who drink starbucks are not any less Chinese or Eastern"

Well, I would say that they are inevitably less Chinese, since China has no background in democracy OR activism (very few countries in the East do) which, de facto, makes them at least somewhat Westernized. (After all, democracy is an artifact of ancient Greece, and activism was unknown in the East until very recently.)

[kementari2.livejournal.com]

For sure, the areas of Africa colonized by England have, on average, fewer "problems" today than the areas colonized by the French.

[(Anonymous)]

Similarly, from reading this blog one might come to the conclusion that all of the 350 million people in the US and UK were only invading other countries and producing tv programs with gaudy graphics.

The media may not be willing to provide a balanced account; but, then, apparently, neither are you.

But we know why you do this. You think it's wrong to criticize cultures that aren't your own. But this amounts to a kind of cultural relativism, which is essentially a racist way to look at the world since you're saying "Those Burkina Fasians, they really don't know any better than to enslave each other, but they sure make pretty pottery."

My posts here are merely meant to temper this extreme relativism. Because if you ignore the bad things about a country, then the problems stay under the radar but nevertheless remain real problems. Your desire to sweep it under the rug has the net effect of keeping those people stuck in their plight.

Being opposed to imperialism does not require that we extol the wonderfulness of third world dictatorships to do it.

I believe you do this because you believe you are shocking the public out of its supposed sleep; but is there anyone actually asleep? The entire world hates America, a large majority of Americans dislike Bush, and Tony Blair is similarly unpopular. The world doesn't exactly need further enlightening on the failings of these administrations.

-henryperri

[imomus.livejournal.com]

But admit it, Henri, you never thought quite in terms of "Who the hell do you think I want to be?" before, did you? As a statement both of an individual's mixed motives (egalitarian / aspirational) and something the developing world might ask the West?

[(Anonymous)]

No, I think it's an astute connection.

"Who do you think you are?" is a sentiment rooted in the iconoclasm of the 1960s, where that generation insisted on tearing down centers of authority in order to "free" society. But this freedom was an across the board freedom which that generation did not think through beforehand. So while the artist was freed to wear long hair and do whatever kind of art it is that they weren't previously allowed to do, the working class thug was also now encouraged to exercise his resentment, in his own unique way, whether that be vandalism, robbery, public drunkeness, or whathaveyou.

"I want to be you" perhaps originated sometime after the Industrial Revolution and the Enlightenment when people, being stripped of their religious motivations for living, along with the traditional moral restraints associated with that religion, were given the green light to consume and covet with impunity.

Both motivations remain strong and conflict with each other because wealth is a powerful magnet, but equally attractive is the call to act out your resentment toward society.

You say that this is a question that the Third World is asking the West. Perhaps to some degree. However, there are still more people trying to get into the US and UK than get out.

I'm just as opposed to the "bling-glitz" culture as you are. But I think this culture ultimately has its roots in the Enlightenment and the counterculture movement of the 60s. It isn't that the people involved in those movements wished for crass capitalism, but in their imprudent rush to eliminate authority they unintentionally created that effect.

-henryperri