Raymond on Pathologising the intellectual opposition
I’ve just finished reading ‘Eminent Hipsters’, Donald Fagen’s erudite and witty homage to his favourite musicians of the 1950s and ’60s. I’m not going to review the book, but something in it really caught my eye and I’m compelled to pass comment.
Some of my friends (particularly those who have, over the years, been bored rigid by my missionary zeal), are aware of my admiration and love for Donald’s work, both as a solo artist and as part of Steely Dan. I was too young to appreciate ‘The Dan’ when they were in their prime; my love affair with their music only started after a friend made me a compilation tape back in 1989. He knew that I was a big fan of the Scottish pop outfit Danny Wilson and, as he handed me the tape, said: “If you like Danny Wilson, just wait until you hear this”. It was the start of a love affair which endures to this day. Indeed, so great is my fan-boy love for this band that when, after a twenty year hiatus, they released their comeback album ‘Two against nature’, I took the day off work just to listen to it. Tragic, I know, but I relate this information in order to establish my Danorak credentials. Believe me, I’ve got lots of good stuff in the bank with Donald Fagen.
It gives me no great pleasure, therefore, to state that ‘Eminent Hipsters’ contains one of the most dismal paragraphs I’ve ever read (and, believe me, I’ve read plenty dismal).
Just to set the scene: the second half of the book takes the form of a tour diary, wherein Donald writes (amusingly and with no little degree of acerbic insight) about life on the road with the Boys of September, an occasional combo he fronts along with Boz Scaggs and Michael MacDonald. Their act consists of standards, personal favourites and, of course, some of their hit singles (between them, they’ve had a few over the years). Although he loves the music they’re playing on the tour, there is a sense in which Fagen is slumming it a little, because he has to play smaller venues and stay in cheaper hotels than he would ever be required to do on a Steely Dan tour. He bitches amusingly about the travelling, the hotels and the crowds, many of whom he classifies as ‘TV babies’; by this he means folk who are not particularly fans of his music (nor that of Scaggs and MacDonald), but who expect to hear a shedload of hit singles at every gig. Having selected a really tasteful set of songs, Fagen makes it clear that, at certain gigs, his believes his under-appreciated band to be placing pearls before swine. I can live with his snooty disdain for the audience, particularly as he writes so honestly about the fact that his mental health and well-being is not always entirely robust when he is living the nomadic life. He gives an honest account of the psychic damage he endures through endless bus journeys, faceless hotels and interminable sound-checks; at one point, he even fantasises about a venue catching fire during one of their gigs.
I’m fine with all of that stuff, but I’m not so good with this paragraph, written after a gig in Texas:
“I’m back from the show. The house was a legion of TV Babies, maybe tourists from Arizona. I don’t know. Probably right-wingers too, the victims of an epidemic illness that a British study has proven to be the result of having an inordinately large amygdala, a part of the primitive brain that causes them to be fearful way past the point of delusion, which explains why their philosophy, their syntax and their manner of thought don’t seem to be reality based. That’s why, when you hear a Republican speak, it’s like listening to somebody recount a particularly boring dream.
In the sixties, during the war between the generations, I always figured that all we had to do was wait until the old, paranoid, myth-bound sexually twisted Hobbesian geezers died out. But I was wrong. They just keep coming back, these mouldering, bloodless vampires, no matter how many times you hammer in the stake. It’s got to be the amygdala thing. Period, end of story.”
Really?
Polite society frowns upon prejudices like sexism, racism and homophobia, yet here’s an outrageous example presented by an intelligent, sensitive, artistic man, that glibly dismisses around half of the population of the United States for their ‘primitive brains’. How, I wondered, could a cultured person succumb to such wretched complacency?
As if this tribal prejudice dressed up as intellectual rigour wasn’t ridiculous enough, Donald’s inability to comprehend the implications of what he said is mind-blowing. Because, at the heart of that statement about those ‘right-wing’ brains is something even more depressing than weapons-grade arrogance; there is a literal failure to understand and respect the ‘otherness’ of folk whose ideas don’t correspond to his own. That might save him the bother of having to negotiate the pesky minefield of intellectual argument, but if you ever find yourself resorting to the old Stalinist tactic of pathologising your opposition, you should perhaps give some thought to the intellectual company you’re keeping. It’s not, after all, like the 20th century didn’t provide us with plenty of examples of where this kind of thinking leads.
I’m using broad brush strokes here, but I feel obliged to point out that I encounter this kind of thinking more among friends and acquaintances on the political left than among friends and acquaintances on the right. And, still using those broad brush strokes, I’d hazard the guess that this might be because folk on the left are more likely to believe in the perfectibility of humankind, a belief that is invariably underpinned by a self-regarding moral vanity which tends to overlook or ignore any inconvenient truths. Moreover, my experience has been that anyone who believes in that perfectibility is likely to fancy that it has already been achieved by … guess who? Why, by them, of course; by people like Donald Fagen. All of which leads me to conclude that Donald, in that one horrible paragraph, has inadvertently provided a perfect illustration of the complacent authoritarianism that seems to have infested a great deal of left-liberal thinking.
As I’ve already stated, I have enough in the bank for me not to fall out with Donald over this (and I’m sure he’ll be relieved to hear that). I love the guy’s music and will continue to love it. If I were to decide that, from tomorrow, I was only going to listen to music made by people who broadly share my political views, I’d have to throw out about 95% of my record collection.
Listening to music because you agree with the politics of the folk who made it seems a bit silly to me. But it’s nowhere near as silly as pretending that there is a neuro-scientific explanation for folk disagreeing with your interpretation of the world.
This analysis doesn’t ring true: “tribal prejudice dressed up as intellectual rigour “.
Having told us that he’s laid out the landscape of “psychic damage” in graphic detail, is it asking too much to conclude that his rant following the bald statement, “I’m back from the show.” is unlikely to be intended to be taken as intellectually rigorous?
Perhaps you’re looking for something that isn’t there.
That looks like two paragraphs to me, Raymond. I’m with Vulpes on this one. I think Donald’s tongue is firmly in his cheek. That whole diary is extreme, misanthropic and miserable, yet glows with the good fortune of someone who knows the gods have smiled on his career. At least, according to my reading of it.
Tell me, do you have a copy with a quote from The Afterword’s very own Bargepole on the back cover?
He’s having a rant. We all do it. This place would be very quiet and dull if everyone indulged in super balanced, moderne reasoning, for example.
Thanks for the feedback, folks. As a fan, I’d like to be able to take a more charitable interpretation of Donald’s remarks, but I’ve just re-read those pages and I still don’t get the impression that his tongue is in his cheek. I do hope that you’re right and I’m wrong.
A few pages after the ‘primitive brain’ thing, after he has talked about imagining the venue catching fire during an unsatisfactory gig, he is careful to state that: “I’m not a psycho; it was just a momentary surge of wrath”. Why, when he invoked pseudo-science to traduce ‘right wingers’, didn’t he print a similar disclaimer, something like: “I don’t really believe in something which was once used to justify slavery and various forms of political persecution”?
I don’t mind the ranting at all, Twang. I just wanted to comment on what I took to be a particularly egregious example. And yes Tigger, my copy does have that quote from Mr Bargepole of ‘Team Afterword’ on the back cover.
Even if it’s tongue in cheek, or a bit of a vent, is there any group other than people with right-of-centre political views who it’s okay to imply are less evolved than the rest of us? It’s the last acceptable prejudice.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds
Here’s what google turned up. No comment from me.
Shouldn’t there be a warning on the cover ‘those of a nervous disposition or lacking in a sense of humour should avoid’?
Even accepting, for the sake of argument, that your reading of his intentions in this passage are correct, the thing that stops me here is your assertion that ‘I encounter this kind of thinking more among friends and acquaintances on the political left than among friends and acquaintances on the right’. I don’t doubt that it’s true in your case, but it certainly isn’t in mine.
I understand the passage could be taken as offensive. Substitute “right-winger” for “negro” and see what happens. Nevertheless I want to pick up on one point which I think is unfair.
“yet here’s an outrageous example presented by an intelligent, sensitive, artistic man, that glibly dismisses around half of the population of the United States for their ‘primitive brains’” …
No. The passage as quoted says the “amygdala, a part of the primitive brain” – which it is, and seems to associated with fear and anxiety when enlarged, or risk taking when small or damaged.
Everything else in the quote is your common or garden old-git, curmudgeonly rant.
I have always loved Fagen, and there were many parts of this book that I thought were wonderfully done. While the quote at issue only caused me to smile, given my political leanings, I really did tire of his relentless complaining about how terrible life on the tour was for him. Every hotel room was awful, each town a nightmare, every hall played lacked proper acoustics. He even complained each time there were kids in the hotel pool where he stayed. I caught no hint of satire or humor in this endless list of horrors, and it made the last third of the book difficult to read. And, mind you, I’m a real fan of him.
I expect those kids didn’t give a fuck about anybody else.
We have a winner!
Well done indeed, oh foxy one.
I broadly agree with what you’re saying, Raymond, but isn’t this paragraph:
“And, still using those broad brush strokes, I’d hazard the guess that this might be because folk on the left are more likely to believe in the perfectibility of humankind, a belief that is invariably underpinned by a self-regarding moral vanity which tends to overlook or ignore any inconvenient truths. Moreover, my experience has been that anyone who believes in that perfectibility is likely to fancy that it has already been achieved by … guess who?”
an equally good example of the “old Stalinist tactic of pathologising your opposition”?
Or was that deliberately ironical? Either way, I agree with you – it’s supremely unhelpful to pretend that people who don’t agree with you are somehow immoral or evil. Far better to try to understand where they might be coming from: one of the great surprises of my adult life has been that whenever I’ve chased that particular rabbit back down its hole I’ve tended to learn something useful.
Thanks, Bingo.
I hope I can explain myself here. I don’t think that I was seeking to pathologise my opposition. Rather, I was attempting to point out (in a few sweeping statements) what I think are the logical conclusions to draw from the remarks made by Mr. Fagen.
Regardless of whether this kind or remark comes from the left or right (and I take Ivylander’s point about other people having different experiences), it amounts to the same thing and -in my opinion- doesn’t get challenged often enough. Anyone who really thinks that ‘their side’ has a monopoly on truth or compassion is not just foolish; they are, surely, monumentally vain.
You were right to challenge me on the ‘perfectibility’ remarks. But having taken the long and sometimes painful journey from left-ish to right-ish over the last twenty-five years or so, I confess that I do believe (and here come those broad brush strokes again) that one of the major weaknesses in leftist-liberal thought is its dogma-bound imagining of a perfect, equal, harmonious world.
That’s probably for another thread, although I suspect that these remarks may now draw my chum Faux Geordie into battle in an attempt to kick my libertarian arse (again).
Having read the section in the book again, I think you have a point. When I first read it, I came from the viewpoint that Fagen’s default position is one of irony and dry wit. I saw all of the diary as some kind of grotesque, like some of the less salubrious characters in his songs, not to be taken seriously. I still think that’s probably the case but can recognise your concerns.
BTW what a civilised thread this is on a tricky subject that can so easily turn sour. Thanks, Raymond. I’m so glad The Afterword is back.
Thanks, Tigger. Yes, you are absolutely right … this is such a civilised place to hang out.
Cheers, Raymond – that makes sense.
For what it’s worth, I took that para at face value and I don’t think it in any way diminished the force of your broader point.
I had a seminal moment in my early 20s when I actually went and read a couple of books by Milton Friedman. I discovered that I didn’t agree with their central prognosis, but they were ultimately founded in logic, raised many points I’d never considered, and that I could fully understand how others might honestly and without malice hold the views espoused therein.
If you have faith in your own opinions then you really owe it to yourself to challenge said opinions by exposing them to the highest quality of alternative view available to you. At worst, you’ll confirm your own beliefs. At best, you’ll develop and enhance them.
Love his music, but not sure he is a great human being : http://europe.newsweek.com/steely-dan-lead-singer-donald-fagen-arrested-allegedly-assaulting-wife-libby-412002?rm=eu
All part of the pervasive leftist conspiracy [taps side of nose].