This week I went to see 'The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui' by Bertolt Brecht. Led by a curiosity to see a Brecht play performed well, I left feeling puzzled and intrigued by the strange resonances of history and its episodes of hope and despair. (At this point and before I go any further I'd like to make the following disclaimer: I am not a dubious racist much as the next section comparing the rise of Hitler to that of Obama may suggest. I just have a very questionable sense of grasp of political correctness and an inability to be concise. Hence the title of this blog).
The play charts the rise of Hitler through the analogous tale of Arturo Ui, a gangster in 1930s Chicago who, with the help of a few ruthless capitalists and good for nothing thugs, comes to power over the vegetable traders of the 'Cauliflower Trust'. Think The Sopranos with bad songs, searing historical commentary and German jokes. The play charts Ui's rise not as inexorable but rather as a slow and steady advance, with numerous critical junctures, where many different actors played a part in creating a monster and clearing his path to power. He emphasizes that what has now acquired the appearance of inevitability was always resistible and that behind the rise of Hitler lay the hand of happenstance more than that of history.
Watching the play on the week that Obama took the White House, I was struck by a number of contrasts and parallels (this is the moment when you are requested to suspend disbelief at the words coming out of my mouth and resist calling the pc police until you've at least reached the end of the fourth paragraph). At somewhat comparable moments in history - chronic, systemic crises in countries beset by a mood of unease and self doubt - two politicians - both highly gifted orators able to stir huge crowds to overwhelming levels of emotion - came to power by means of a confluence of historical events, careful campaigns and a popular vote. There was nothing predestined about either and yet there was something horrifically, in one case, and thrillingly, in the other, historic about both. Crisis and war opened the door for changes that were previously impossible, of both the best and the worst kind.
But of course, if the rise of Hitler was the triumph of evil then that of Obama is, or at least we all so fervently hope, the triumph of the good. His election seems to embody what is best in human nature, what is possible in human history, to nay say the cynics, reward optimism, and most of all, restore hope. I've found myself many times this week in tears watching students at Howard College scream with incredulous joy or reading about the old African American man who photocopied the front pages of newspapers and laminated them to hang on his walls. And though this moment has been redolent with all that seems best about humanity it is also quintessentially American. Much as European applaud from the sidelines like parents who's delinquent child has finally managed to do something right, we are a long way from seeing a prime minister, taoiseach, president or chancellor with such visceral, aspirational vision, let alone one who is black.
And yet, much as I have revelled in the moment, felt vindicated in my faith in the possibility of change, the play brought a reality check. Brecht showed how Hitler changed reality to match the picture of the world that he conjured up in his speeches. He promised Germans a strong hand, law and order, protection and when they asked 'from what?' the SS ran riot and the Reichstag was burned down. He created the chaos out of which to forge the simulacrum of order. But destruction is always easier than construction, especially in a world where everything has been deconstructed to within an inch of Derrida's life. For Obama, creating the reality to match the picture of the world he paints in his speeches will be the greatest of challenges, as commentators have been so quick to point out.
The conclusion from this reality check though, is not then to relinquish hope or dismiss the importance of this moment. That would be too easy. It is rather to hold onto the hope all the more fiercely, defend it against cynicism as Obama inevitably fails to deliver all he has promised. For the final message of Brecht's play is that the death of hope precedes the triumph of evil and despair. That things can always change for both better and for worse and that this truth is an eternal source of terror and consolation. In the face of volatility two responses are possible - fear and hope. To ensure that the worst in humanity is resisted and to have any chance of making our reality match our rhetoric we must hold onto what Obama so fully embodies - unyielding hope.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Thank you for summing up so eloquently what I have been unable to put into words this past week.
Beautifully put as always. And I couldn't agree more with the sentiment. But, I have a challenge to make - why are journalists, commentators, intellectuals and lay people the world over infinitely more engaged by the election of a president in a country numerous time zones away than political decisions made in their own back garden? I've got a friend who stayed up all night for the presidential elections and didn't even vote in the London mayoral elections. And I don't think he's alone. We are just more comfortable with an abstract and grandiose narrative unfolding on the dramatic stage of the red, white and blue. All of us have a lot more influence, interest and investment in our own country, a much deeper understanding of the issues faced, and a lot more clarity on what we want to see different. Yet everyone seems to think that politics here is just much too drab. Whilst I'll watch with interest what Obama is able to put in place in the coming years, I think we need to overcome the growing orthodoxy that a $450 million political marketing campaigns is the only way to make politics exciting.
Comments?
You have drawn a very interesting and eloquent comparison between the Brecht play's themes and the recent election campaign's historical issues. You have hinted at the very reasons, why as a German, suspicion towards anyone who is able to mobilize the masses has been ingrained into me from an early age: the different uses to which the charismatic power of an individual can be put: both constructive and destructive ones. History offers a huge number of examples of such individuals who created either good or bad outcomes, and sometimes both at the same time. However, I would like to add, that, while there is every reason to hope for very positive outcomes in Obama's case, and nothing in his character or curriculum vitae to suggest otherwise, in more general terms, the very essence of the charismatic person and their power over others often makes it quite difficult to distinguish between good and evil. In fact, in the early 1930's wide popular masses hailed Hitler as a kind of messiah and strong leader, in fact, having very high hopes for a positive future for themselves, and being very unaware of his sinister aims, as they did not actually read his book, and as his party promoted national socialism, promised work and social reforms at a time of capitalist exploitation and economic crisis.......
Contrary to the resistible rise of Hitler and the obvious signs of his evil purpose, in the case of Obama we have indeed reason to hope for very positive social and humanist changes. However, let's not forget that there is not just black and white, but a less dramatic mediocre outcome: anyone who promises a lot takes the risk of disappointing a lot, this can be seen at every level in politics in all countries (as well as at very private levels), and promise is always the quickest way to gain power over others, the challenge remains to prove one's true commitment to carry out positive changes......Often those who talk less do more, as they promise nothing unless they are sure of their ability to keep their promise, and it's always best to judge others by their actions rather than their words (as we might all have experienced within our own circles). Nevertheless, the charismatic persona is a necessity in politics to gain the position to make changes in the first place of course...and the very fact itself that someone with Obama's intelligence, curriculum vitae and ideas was elected by a majority of people in America does indeed give reason for enthusiasm.
I think the points that Eva raises answer many of the questions that you pose Ben. For I think that the history of Europe has made us particularly cynical and inately distrustful of the possibilities of politics, given that those possibilities often led the continent in catastrophic directions. I think our expectations of politics have shrunk to a more modest expectation of competence, rather than charisma, well managed social democracies rather than a quest for ever greater justice and utopian ideals. I think the marks this history has left explain not only the absence of comparable politicians in Europe but also the enthusiasm of people here for that alternative conception of the political, particularly among the young who are most distant from that history. At a guess I would say that your friend who stayed up all night is as energised by what Obama symbolizes in terms of what politics is and can be, as much as what he as a politician is. But this is the opinion of a little reformed historian who always gives the past the most weight...what would the anthropologists, lawyers, economists say?
An economist might say: Ben's friend has a very good grasp of economic fundamentals! Its Barrack not Boris that's going to have the most impact on his prospects over the next two/three years. So it was arguably worth the investment of a sleepless night!
A lawyer might suggest on its own charisma should not be a threat, given the rule of law is respected by citizens/politicians/civil servants and they ensure it is effective and transparent. The task of its fair and non discriminatory enforcement and oversight is then up to the police and the courts. And it is Governmnent that must be guarentor that this happens. But should all of this fail then the leaders of civic society must step in for all it takes for evil to triumpph is for good men/women to do nothing.
As for the anthropologist would he perhaps say that the exceptionlism of US society and its continuing belief in the triumph of hope over experiance (as first evidenced on the Mayflower) remains a tradeable political currency because it derives from a living element of that countrys DNA -yes we can!.
Finally given the choice between hope and fear humans generally prefer the thrill of hope but understand that fear is too often the apparently rational choice!
I would have to disagree with your economist Michael - yes, Barrack is more influential than Boris, though - as I pointed out - my friend had absolutely no influence over the result, so it was simply entertainment not politics. In terms of a simple cost-benefit analysis of investment versus outcome he was totally wasting his time.
I would both agree and disagree with your assessment of where we are with politics in Europe Michelle. As voter turnout figures and surveys of political opinions have consistently shown, we are more disengaged from mainstream politics than we have been for half a century. We tend to have very low expectations of what politics can deliver, and both the ability and reliability of politicians.
However, I think we'd have to go a little deeper into the reasons underlying that disengagement to actually understand it, and then help tackle it - re-igniting people's hope in the potential of politicians is certainly part of the problem as you said; but I think engaging people to change issues in their locale, and demonstrating the potential of politics to change these also has a huge part to play. All that happens a long way from crowds of 200,000 in Chicago - and is a hell of a lot less glamorous. That's all I wanted to say in my first - slightly more hyperbolic - message.
Enter the socio-political psychologist, writing from bed on a Friday morning in London, across the road from the primary school in which she was able to use the PR system to express her real preference for mayor, without damaging Ken's chances.
So, the importance of the 'choice' of electoral system in shaping citizens' experience of politics. I felt far more alienated during the dichotomised British general election than when faced with the variety on offer in Ireland. But then, an eminent constitutional anayst told me of the lack of accountability associated with multi-seat constituencies, and the article by Seymour Martin Lipsett that Michelle sent me talks of the damaging effect on stable democracy of multi-party as opposed to two party systems. Then again, Lipsett is massively guilty of Michelle's sin of favouring order over justice, which I couldn't have spotted so neatly if it weren't for her articulations.
I also mention the primary school in solidarity with Benedict's defence of the local. It's not just that Barack Obama's appeal stems from the mind's preference for simplified heroes over complex issues, but that scrutinising the distant and abstract is generally far less threatening. I think it would be better to seek catharsis for our impulses toward justice through everyday action in the immediate, rather than idealised and foreign narratives.
But then I'm more guilty than most of searching for an exotic battle to fight, and I've done no more than loiter in the Waterloo Community Action Centre. I've also cheaply touched on at least four psychological paradigms above, into none of which I buy.
Michelle, history is all-important, but who empirically studies historical consciousness? We only have to look at the Celtic Cubs to see how what happenend in the past can easily be forgotten for the sake of the desires of the present.
I know I'm behind, so I'll skip off to the next blog...
Post a Comment