imomus: (Default)
[personal profile] imomus
I'm interested in the Shakers today, because the last parallel Scotland I wrote for my Book of Scotlands unfolds a scenario in which an evangelical Scottish entrepreneur called Brent Shouter decides to use his influence and wealth to make Scotland go Shaker. He arranges exhibitions and launches a heavily-subsidized lifestyle chain called Shakestation which sells stark, simple furniture in the Shaker style. Shouter is so successful that Scots retreat from cities to self-sustaining, celibate rural communities, disconnecting from TV, radio and the internet. When the Shouter character dies, the government sends an androgynous "Government Christ" to beguile the Shouter-Shakers back to living in cities and reproducing. It's urgent, because celibacy is making the Scots die out.



Researching this story, I found a wonderful 30 minute documentary about The Shakers on the Folkstreams website. Made in 1974 on 16mm, the film (I'd recommend the Real Surestream version) mostly consists of interviews with Shaker women born in the 1870s. They've outlived all the Shaker males, and linger on, the last generation of a beautiful cult erased from history by their own fear of sex. As one of them sings: "Come light Shaker light come life eternal, come shake out of me all that is carnal". It's precisely this "shaking out of all that is carnal" that has erased the Shakers from history.

I'm interested in connections some observers have made between Shaker design and Modernism, and Shaker design and Japanese crafts. There does seem to be a connection to both (a big draw at the American pavilion in the Osaka Expo 70 was Shaker furniture, for instance), and it's something to do with modesty and simplicity, functionalism and avoidance of ostentation -- the kind of qualities we'd call "Protestant", basically, and which connect extreme practicality with a kind of micro-spirituality; which say, in other words, that functional things are also spiritual things, because God loves people who work.

Unfortunately, God also loves people who reproduce, and the Shakers... didn't.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-28 12:45 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bennycornelius.livejournal.com
Interesting stuff. Formed in Manchester I believe...

Can we even call their existence with the menfolk endogamy? Did Shakers ever properly recognise marriage, if they forbade procreation? As with all cults that seem doomed to disappearance, I'm particularly interested in attempts to renew or reinvigorate their membership - this (http://www.jstor.org/pss/1185585) may therefore be of interest, but I sadly lack JSTOR access these days...

Ben

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-28 12:49 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lord-whimsy.livejournal.com
Yes--that little doc is a classic. Their ethic of simplicity made for great furniture, but I'd imagine that encountering a Shaker compound during their 19C heyday would have been an unsettling experience for an outsider. But then, maybe not, since the country was full of such speculative utopian communities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Harmony,_Indiana) at that time.

The coercive uniformity of mass culture and disruptive influence of drugs helped to kill a lot of these communities off, culminating in scenes like Jonestown (http://www.laweekly.com/2008-10-23/news/from-silver-lake-to-suicide/all) and the Branch Davidians.

Quaker meeting houses are still active in this area.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-28 12:54 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] count-vronsky.livejournal.com
Oh yes! I've been to Pleasant Hill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakertown) several times :) Not to mention my Shaker night stand - holding my Noguchi lamp. I've been interested in the Shakers since I read that Nathaniel Hawthorne almost became one, stopped only by the chastity bit. Interesting to wonder how his writing would have changed had he gone through with it.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-28 12:54 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
On marriage, they quoted the Bible saying that in heaven there is no marriage.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-28 12:58 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lord-whimsy.livejournal.com
They kind of took a page out of the Cathar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathar) playbook when it came to marriage.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-28 01:15 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] count-vronsky.livejournal.com
"a beautiful cult erased from history by their own fear of sex." That's a bit too Freudian, yeah? Instead of that frame, perhaps they were all too fully aware, no, hyper-aware of the all encompassing sex drive and chose instead, with full autonomy--remember, they weren't forcing this lifestyle upon anyone--to sublimate their sexual desires so as to achieve what they believed to be a higher purpose--spiritual ecstasy. In the same way that Marx would say that religion is the opiate of the people, Mother Ann Lee would say that sex is opiate to the spirit. Considering that there were reports that they could conjure up the ghosts of Abraham Lincoln and Ben Franklin when they got their shake on --and those buildings are beautifully, almost wondrously built, but supposedly the shaking would get so intense at times that windows would break and chairs would fall off of the walls-- maybe it was worth it.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-28 02:19 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lupoleboucher.livejournal.com
Only peripherally related, you should really know about the Oneida Community. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_Community) They had sort of the opposite philosophy, and made nice silverware.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-28 04:09 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] girlygeekblog.livejournal.com
See also: Amish, Quakers, Mennonites. They all make simple furniture that is what I guess you would call 'Modern' looking.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-28 06:07 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] silenceinspades.livejournal.com
do you ever go to the quaker meetings?
i used to go one in bergen county every once in a while and play the open mic that they'd have at the end. it was all aging hippies reading poetry and playing guitar. and they made excellent pie.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-28 09:25 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
Oh, I'm quite happy to buy that. After all, I myself have chosen not to reproduce, but to stake everything on the intensity of the moment. Is it worth it? I think so, though my DNA may be grumbling.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-28 09:36 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cap-scaleman.livejournal.com
In my oppinion the quakers seems to be one of the more "open" branches of christianity out there. Some might practice islamic types of meditation in order to reach "god within themselves". That is, the way I understand it quakers see god as existing inside of people rather than being some sort of "overwatch".

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-28 10:15 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
I don't see why "reproduce" and "intensity of the moment" are incompatible.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-28 10:51 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
You try having an intense spiritual life -- or an intense intellectual life, for that matter -- with children around! You have to admit that some forms of intensity (intense concentration on anything that isn't the kids, for instance) go out the window when the pram comes to the hallway!

No doubt those cerebral forms of intensity are replaced by intense love, though, and intense stress, and intense feelings of belonging to the community, and intense community policing... and, sometimes, intense annoyance. WILL YOU STOP CRYING?

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-28 11:12 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
No, I simply don't buy into the "pram in the hallway" cliché. If you live in a country with state-subsidised childcare, you have plenty of time for an intense intellectual life, without having to be terribly rich. And having a child actually sparks lots of thoughts about language, about fantasy, narrative, how ideas and worldviews are constructed. I look around at the artists and intellectuals I admire, and most of them (the straight ones, in any case) reproduced. (Didn't Bowie live with his son while he was making those groundbreaking Berlin albums?)

shaky business

Date: 2008-10-28 11:17 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] robinsonner.livejournal.com
Brent Shouter?

Stagecoach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagecoach_Group)?

Soapy Brian Soutar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Souter)?

Like all good yarns there may be other threads in the fabric of this ideaspace.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-28 11:21 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] robinsonner.livejournal.com
Just get the wife to look after the kids. If thats too "traditional" then there's always nannies.

just joking
(sitting here listening to Woman's Hour)

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-28 11:31 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Indeed. Your wife is Japanese, isn't she Momus? In which case, she will no doubt happily take on the lion's share of the childcare without complaint. And I'm sure Berlin is stuffed to the gills with subsidised crèches for its boho babies as well.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-28 11:38 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
I'm not married, but I live with a Japanese woman, yes.

There's no way I could live the life I do with kids, just no way. This week I finished a new book, in two weeks I have a new album coming out, I have three articles due for ID magazine and one each week for the New York Times, I blog every day -- this would just not be possible for a father who was even halfway taking his domestic responsibilities seriously enough.

Now, you may say I do too much, that doing less might make me more effective, whatever. But life is short, and I want to achieve things before I die. I want to make more books and more records. I don't want to be forced to do work which just makes money to provide for a family and otherwise wastes my time. It's a choice, just like it was for those Shakers. A choice of intensities, if you prefer.

It ain't necessarily so...

Date: 2008-10-28 11:38 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Bulgakov

This man (the superior Orthodox theologian of modern times and a seer and mystic too) married Elena Ivanovna Tomkakova at the age of 27. His marriage was a happy one, and some of the deepest moments of his religious experience in subsequent years were set in the context of his family life (three sons and one daughter). He possessed a powerful intellect, wrote many seminal books.

But you Momus are a dilettante, a journalist. The words you write are the coin you conjure with to hide the modish vanity of your thought. But it's payment the stupid seem happy enough to accept. You evidently have neither an 'intense' spiritual life nor an 'intense' intellectual life to sacrifice. If by chance you would like a child and are not impotent, I would advise you to have one.

Shaking Momus

Date: 2008-10-28 11:42 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Hi Nick,

There's a link between Momus and the shakers: R.L. Stevenson "Travels with a donkey". Stevenson was interested by the Camisards during this trip, who later moved to London where they were known as the "French Prophets". The French Prophets, through the writings of Elie Marion, deeply influenced Ann Lee and the early Shaker movement.

Gilles

Re: shaky business

Date: 2008-10-28 11:43 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
"Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, business establishments, events, or locales is entirely coincidental."

Re: Shaking Momus

Date: 2008-10-28 11:49 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
Aha! And I also made an album (with Shazna) called Travels with a Donkey.

There are two or three other reasons I blogged about them. The mixture of flowery housecoats and extra-terrestrial headgear appeals to me (they're very extraterrestrially focused, in fact, and their appearance just reflects that), their otherworldliness (and the 16mm film stock) recalls art films by ImageTacita Dean, Rosalind Nashashibi and Lucy Skaer, and the whole aesthetic also goes well with the look and feel of Ku:nel magazine and the Slow Life movement (the Shakers were self-sustaining, semi-autonomous, somewhat communistic).

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-28 11:51 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Nobody's under any obligation to have children, but I think it's simply wrong to think you can't do a lot and have a child as well. That's a very Anglo-Saxon attitude I think, this negativity towards children. I don't see it so much here in France where children are better integrated into societal structures (and where, admittedly, childcare facilities are so much better). I speak as someone a little like you, in that I work freelance in a cultural sphere and I don't earn much money. I've experienced how that's like without a child, and, for the past three years, with a child. And to be honest, it hasn't made that much amount of difference to the amount of work I do or can do. I've certainly had to be a bit more disciplined about my time, and I also have less free time on weekends. But that's about it.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-28 12:03 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Has your girlfriend decided she doesn't want children either? Or is it something you don't talk about?

Re: It ain't necessarily so...

Date: 2008-10-28 12:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
Aw, bless, at least you like me enough to want me to reproduce!

Aren't you worried about bringing more "vain modish dilettantes" into the world, though, when there are already far too many? Or are you figuring that they'll inevitably rebel against my values and become marketing executives?

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-28 12:06 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
She still has a good ten years of fertility, and she hasn't ruled it out. But she certainly doesn't have the energy levels right now -- or the desire -- to have kids.

We're actually going to have a little test run this week, though -- we have my nephew Robbie staying with us for a few days! Let's see how it goes.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-28 12:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] robinsonner.livejournal.com
eeek!
I should have said "One can just get the wife to look after the kids"
I feel all Russell Brand now. Jokes gone wrong and all that.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-28 12:21 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
I'm not married, but I live with a Japanese woman, yes.

Didn't you announce your engagement on this very blog like two or three years ago? Long time to keep a girl waiting. Poor show, Momus!

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-28 12:23 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
I'm not married, but I live with a Japanese woman, yes.

Didn't you announce your engagement on this very blog like two or three years ago? Way to keep a girl waiting. Poor show, Momus!

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-28 12:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
We're not engaged, but we've talked about getting married before and no doubt will again.

You'll have to reveal your identity (currently hidden behind two different proxy servers) if you want to be invited to the wedding, though, Anon!

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-28 12:36 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kumakouji.livejournal.com
Lady Hagi said it best:「人は病。」 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation)

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-28 12:46 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bikerbar.livejournal.com
even with the wifey looking after the kids, you need a separate chamber behind a few locked doors to get much accomplished. Children require sacrifice, as relationships do .. thats why most successful artists and writers are intensely self-absorbed bastards.

Sex and Religion

Date: 2008-10-28 01:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bikerbar.livejournal.com
Fascinating documentary .. interesting how in 1970 one could still touch back to the 1880s. The 19th century is fascinating now, like a foreign country.

I've been reading about Ephrata (http://www.cob-net.org/cloister.htm), which was also a celibate (mostly) spiritual community. The idea is to project the physical needs onto a gendered spiritual plane (Christ and Sophia). Man was perfect and asexual before the Fall, so it is an attempt to get back to the Garden, so to speak, by denying all physical urges (apart from food and shit, though they also often fasted).

Other groups would take similar ideas in the opposite direction, a salvation through the sexual act, a sort of Christian tantric group sex magic worship thing.

have alook here (http://books.google.com/books?id=Yr-8FypJ7ekC&pg=PA301&lpg=PA301&dq=muckers+canters+buttler&source=bl&ots=7iPmr325yl&sig=67q1_VwXwYIoC5V65QKfA8PRR8s&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result) and here (http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas27.htm)


These groups don't last long because they are persecuted by the locals. Though nowadays the Thelemites get up to such things with out too much notice.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-28 01:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bokmala.livejournal.com
There is no more sombre enemy of good art than the pram in the hall... -C.Connolly

Pace Connolly, I suspect good art can survive even with a baby screaming in the hall, as long as someone else runs out to comfort it.
Parents like Picasso, Doris Lessing and Ingmar Bergman (who was only able to remember which year his children were born if he was told what he was shooting at the time) are the template.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-28 02:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] robinsonner.livejournal.com
I suppose its all down to time management. Plus there is a creative friction in resolving caring and relationships which seems to yield its own insights.
I used to be amused by the idea of craft gestation and its parallels with parenthood. A friend seemed to produce a novel for every child he fathered. His wife would get rather nervous when he started working on any new book and perhaps it explains his later move into poetry.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-28 02:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] catharine.livejournal.com
Quakers and Shakers are not the same.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-28 02:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] count-vronsky.livejournal.com
(ack! LJ ate my comment last night - here I'll try again from memory)

I guess what I'm trying to get at is the difference between voluntary sublimation/repression and the kind which takes place in our larger psychic/social selves completely unbidden, and without our conscious knowledge. I think artists, writers, religious people and even athletes do the former all the time. Drew Bundini Brown taught Ali that he "had to keep the hard on" not lose it. His desire to destroy his opponent had to be more than his desire to bang the pretty blond sitting ringside. Ralph Waldo Emerson said that if you are still interested in fancy coffees (guilty) then you are not ready. Similar to what the sufi master said to the young ephebe who wanted to learn the sacred dance. Go and fast for three days, then have a sumptuous banquet prepared. If he still wanted to learn, more than he wanted to eat, then he could follow the way of the sufis. Some of the early gnostic (valentinus (http://www.cogwriter.com/valentinus.htm)) schools taught that the soul was basically a "slut" but once it joined with the divine, it spurned all other lovers. I think what attracts me to these traditions is the ancient recognition that humans are controlled by two main things, their stomachs and their cocks, which a part of me agrees with. Not that I could ever practice such asceticism - are you kidding me? My dick gets hard every time the wind blows. But I do think that there is a significant subset of intelligent people who resent the power that sex has over them.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-28 02:30 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
I think I've always done things compulsively, which means done them with a semi-sexual appetite, powered by unconscious forces. Things that didn't have that kind of wind in their sails (that relied, in other words, on true self-denial) never interested me.

But sex is not a very demanding master: you really can't be having sex all day long, after all, just as you can't be eating all day either. There are natural cycles of interest and disinterest in both food and sex, and during the down times you can be getting on with other things.

Re: It ain't necessarily so...

Date: 2008-10-28 03:50 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
No, I don't like you at all actually. Rebel? You are a marketing executive.

I was born to adore you

Date: 2008-10-28 04:30 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] count-vronsky.livejournal.com
But for the sake of argument, couldn't we say that sex IS a demanding master whether we like to admit it or not, and that all those other things that we do in our "down times" can be traced back to our unconscious desire for sex? How many musicians have said that their real motivation to get into music was to meet girls? (The boasting/wish fulfillment of your "Born To Be Adored" for example). From a strictly Darwinian perspective couldn't we say that all "art" is just a form of courtship display? Peacocking? A feathering of the nest?

Re: It ain't necessarily so...

Date: 2008-10-28 04:53 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
Ah, so you want me to reproduce as a punishment? Gotcha.

Re: I was born to adore you

Date: 2008-10-28 04:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
It's certainly a factor -- I go with Freud's definition of the creative writer's motivation as "fame, power and the love of women" -- but only one ingredient in the cocktail.

But let's imagine our (male) artist having sex some of the time, and the rest storing up future sex in the form of art which will impress the girls (or boost his status and wealth in ways that impress the girls). Let us imagine him, In other words, sublimating, and let us define sublimating as a sexual activity which also postpones sexual activity.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-28 04:59 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
I shouldn't worry. Bach had 20 kids, but his genes died out after a generation.

Re: It ain't necessarily so...

Date: 2008-10-28 05:08 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Christ. Alright, how's about 'If by chance you want a child and aren't impotent, the grounds on which you refrain are spurious'.

Nite nite.

God loves people who work.

Date: 2008-10-29 01:29 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pay-option07.livejournal.com
Modernism marginalizes, destroys and obliterates everything it touches.
Conservatism can do that to.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-29 06:23 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lord-whimsy.livejournal.com
I know people who don't hold to any faith but do go (Quakers were kind of like proto-humanists), but I derive my sustenance elsewhere. (http://lord-whimsy.livejournal.com/393929.html)

That said, I do have Quaker sympathies. Many of America's greatest naturalists, like William Bartram, were Quakers. This was due in part to their reverence for nature, and their belief that the word of God lay not in the Bible, but in his works.

Image

Here is a local meeting house that dates back to 1775, made from the local red sandstone. The eaves are lined with bat houses, since they were shooed out of the attic at one point (Quakers like to tread lightly).

Image

This is a typical Quaker graveyard. Originally the graves were unmarked, but eventually they began to use blank stone markers.

The Friends meetings down this way tend to be traditional, with little or nothing spoken, and long silences.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-29 06:26 am (UTC)

Profile

imomus: (Default)
imomus

February 2010

S M T W T F S
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28      

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags