The Peril of Valuing Celebrity Over History
As we entered the stately house in the tony suburb of New York, we commented on what an impressive place it was. Our host looked around with satisfaction. He had a lot of new money, and had only recently acquired the place. It had a slightly Moorish feel, more west coast than east.
“Yes, plus the house has history,” he said. “It used to belong to Upton Sinclair.” As his gaze moved across the high space of the foyer, he added absently, “Or Sinclair Lewis. One of them.” His shrug said “What’s the dif?”
Not even George Babbitt, out of the 1922 Sinclair Lewis novel that sent up petit bourgeois pretension, would have said such a thing. Understand that I, myself, am perfectly capable of confusing well-known authors, especially if they have an overlap of names. No one would mistake Joyce Kilmer for James Joyce, but I did once. So I do not write this smugly.
What my host was displaying, though, went beyond such thickheadedness. He loved his house precisely for its association with a generalized celebrity, not a particular authorial achievement. Fame, detached from what generates it, is its own value. An obsessive deference to such fame, and an all-consuming preoccupation with it, has become the defining mark of our culture. But why?
The difference between Sinclair Lewis and Upton Sinclair matters. Both were acclaimed novelists, setting much of the literary style of American letters in the first half of the 20th century. Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle,” published in 1906 and exposing abuses in the meat packing industry, was the progenitor of muckraking, but as late as 1943 his “Dragon’s Teeth” won the Pulitzer Prize. He was a socialist and frequently ran for political office.
Among the many people who were inspired by him was the young Sinclair Lewis, who joined a short-lived utopian community that Upton Sinclair founded in 1907. But Lewis became famous for “Main Street” and “Babbitt” in the early 1920s and, in 1930, became the first American writer to win the Nobel Prize. Like Upton Sinclair, Sinclair Lewis was profoundly countercultural, but he was an omni-directional satirist, and his 1935 forecast of American fascism, “It Can’t Happen Here,” included a portrait of Upton Sinclair as a political nutcase.
It was my host’s house that “had history,” but not my host. The shallowness of contemporary public discourse, devoid of history, is everywhere visible — from the “eternal now” of celebrity journalism to the absurdity of an “antiwar” rhetoric that assumes, in fact, a permanent US war machine in Iraq. In the emerging Democratic consensus, forged by Congressional leaders and presidential front-runners, supposedly in opposition to Bush’s war, “out now” is becoming “out when conditions permit” — which is, of course, Bush’s exact position. Such conditions will never come; therefore — Garrison Forever.
Yet, speaking of history, this conjuring of the appearance of opposition where none actually exists has been mandated by the American political system since the onset of the Cold War. The quadrennial political puppet show, highlighting not opposition but its appearance, is essential to keeping the captive-taking war machine running and to inoculating the American people from the viral knowledge that they themselves were first to be captured.
A minimal acquaintance with history, including dissections of American culture already performed by both Sinclairs, would undermine our national complacency. Upton Sinclair, for example, showed the rapaciousness of capitalism, the vampire-like appetite with which it feeds on the blood of human beings. Even with “reforms” (”The Jungle” led to the establishment of the Food and Drug Administration), the profit-worshipping economy to this day eludes controls that would protect majorities of citizens in this country and across the world. Sinclair Lewis, for his part, showed how the simultaneously banalizing methods of capitalist enterprise (false advertising, consumerism, pieties of affluence, amoral bureaucracy) are exactly what that enterprise created to keep from being criticized. Then inhale the crack cocaine of celebrity.
The US conflagration in the oil well of the globe was ignited without attention to history, which is why it flares out of control. But that war, fought by GIs, mercenaries, and proxies, will continue indefinitely, because, under the martial law that implicitly governs the United States, history can never be invoked except for its celebrity value — not even history in the making. Therefore, it is certain that the staggering failures of Washington’s current policy, so evident today, will be forgotten tomorrow, even as that policy is reaffirmed. Or, as they say, what’s the dif?
James Carroll’s column appears regularly in the Globe.
© 2007 The Boston Globe
But, how long can the center hold?
Better yet: how long can extremists claim they hold the American center?
I don’t think there is a celebrity that I would walk across the street to meet. Most of the hollywood, business, academic,authors, politician celebrities do not have as much sense as my 13 year old daughter. They all are guided by narrow self interest first, everything else later.
Jeez, is the Boston Globe’s James Carroll really offering a quiet criticism of capitalism here, discreetly tucked into the last 2 paragraphs? For the MSM, this is very unusual, to put it mildly.
He deserves a good bit of credit for this, even if he’s somewhat buried it.
His dire prediction here deserves attention: The war will continue indefinitely because American culture is designed to preclude awareness of the lessons of history.
sigma’s final sentence describes the celebrities AND the star-struck US electorate. They attempt to deal with their insecurity through celebrity worship. When that doesn’t work they worship more celebrities.
The Iraq occupation will continue until the oil companies have pumped the last gallon of crude out of Asia.
“Do I understand your question, man,
“Is it hopeless and forlorn?
“‘Come in,’ she said, ‘I’ll give you
“Shelter from the storm.’”
Look at those whom we have turned into celebrities and the reasons we have done so, and one has diagnosed the core problem of American society.
Carroll is on target as usual.
And, speaking of history, check this out:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml
This is not the first time that this gang of thugs has attempted a coup in the US…granddaddy Prescott Bush and his buddies tried this in 1933…. PLEASE check this out–you will not believe that this is an actual historical event that most of us have never heard of….
This leaves no doubt as to what the current gang is up to in Washington….
Awareness of history? From the sheep who believe evolution is an anti-Christian myth and that still believe Saddam was flying one of the 911 planes? Who believe humans have nothing to do with Catastrophic Climate Change, which they believe is actually a big liberal anti-business hoax anyway? Who believe al Qaeda is the superboggyman who hates what’s left of our freedoms? Who believe the Constitution is over-rated and the Geneva Conventions “quaint?” Who believe more dead soldiers honor dead soldiers?
Awareness of history? I’d be happy with an awareness of present day reality…
O that we had fewer lawyers and more historians in our legislatures! Lawyers say, “What can we get away with?” Historians say, “Have we been here before, and what happened?”
As a Brit, I have some hope (but not a great deal) for the future, since our new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, is a historian by training. Blair is a lawyer.
To any parent of teenagers: Entice them, with a bribe if necessary, to watch Lewis Lapham’s film ” THE AMERICAN RULING CLASS”, shown on Sundance Channel. A DVD of this film, if available nationwide, might open some eyes.
My dad tells me MTV is corrupt. But what does he know? He told me he keeps his job by not making waves. What a wannabe!
What a minute. I got a call coming in.
That was Michael. He wants me to go to the movies. Maybe a stop at our favorite diner afterward. He’s so cool. Me reminds me of Jakob Dylan. Oh, those blue eyes!
Listen! You wanna go to the concert in Wolftrap! It’s gonna be so fly!
Then we can go to Georgetown for late nite drinks.
Don’t worry about Dad. He’s gonna be reading some shit on the internet, probably that Info Cleansing House he’s always talking about.
James Carroll illustrates an interesting point about the rich; not all, but many only read book reviews, then pretend to understand the story and discuss the writer’s intent at their social gatherings.
Both “Sinclairs” were great writers with something to say, but Upton Sinclair would have been my hero of the day had I lived in that period. Sure, he was a socialist, and a populist, and most working-class people admired him. When he ran for Governer of California, the wealthy ruling class saw him as a threat, and the Los Angeles Times newspaper as well as the Hollywood “moguls”, demonized him and with a steady stream of propaganda, made sure Upton was defeated at the polls on election day.
In recent years they have repeated the same tactic with Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich, marginalizing them, and the public falls for it as usual, and elects or reelects less honorable people who misrepresent them.
Who said, “the more things change, the more they are the same?”
Upton Sinclair also wrote “The Brass Check - A Study of American Journalism”
Here’s the 1st paragraph of a U.of Illinois webpage describing (& selling) the book:
The Brass Check
Introduction by Robert W. McChesney and Ben Scott
In this systematic critique of the structural basis of U.S. media–arguably the first one ever published–Upton Sinclair writes that “American journalism is a class institution serving the rich and spurning the poor.” Likening journalists to prostitutes, the title of the book refers to a chit that was issued to patrons of urban brothels of the era. …
http://www.press.uillinois.edu/s03/sinclair.html
Praytell, Daddy, what happened after the Reichstag Fire, after the big patriotic rallies, after the aggressive invasions, after the whittling down of rights? Everything was fine, right???
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml
Prescott Bush et al. tried to overthrow the US government and install a fascist regime in 1933–this is NOT fiction!
And yet one wonders. Apparently Hitler brought Germany out of economic trouble. By 1933, the US stock market had been gamed by well-connected elites who then proceeded to foreclose (sound familiar?) on people left and right. Of course Hitler’s ethnic cleansing, preemptive warfare, assault on civil liberties and free speech, etc. was absolutely miserable. But his own people apparently loved him.
How is it that Prescott’s grandson Shrub ended up as a Zionist, widely distrusted, corrupt and inept? Anyone have a theory?
Why can’t we have a widely liked leader who is not a genocidal racist, does not serve some other country’s interests, is trusted, and extremely competent? For crying out loud, are people like this barred from getting elected or something?
The German people loved Hitler because he gave them a scapegoat (the Jews and other so-called “degenerates”–eg, gays) for their economic and social misery…
The reason behind the planned coup by Prescott Bush and the other ruling elites (who,, yes, had gamed the stock market) was FDR’s New Deal social welfare reforms–the same reforms the Republicans have been trying to gut ever since..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml
Often times human history, its’ miseries and apparent triumphs, is imagined as some epic battle between good and evil; which is which depending upon your perspective. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that it is, in fact, nothing more than a failed experiment of evolution.
Carroll can be quite a profound writer and I think this is one of his most engaging essays. The fact that he’s allowed, even mildly, to criticize capitalism and tout a socialist is extraordinary for a mainstream American newspaper.
I don’t mind if he criticizes the anti-war movement but I honestly am not quite sure what he is saying here:
‘to the absurdity of an “antiwar” rhetoric that assumes, in fact, a permanent US war machine in Iraq.’
There is a US war machine in Iraq but it’s only passing through?
How can “rhetoric” “assume” anything? It is twisted syntax and logic, and finally I’m not sure what criticism he’s actually making.
Odd for somebody who writes so eloquently to stumble so badly. Or am I missing something?
Otherwise, an enlightening commentary.
About the need to understand history.
When I visited the US as a foreign exchange student back in the day the curriculum contained about the same number of history classes as my school back home. The thing was, that it was American history. Over and over again. In comparison, world history was skimmed over in one semester.
Now, I understand that each country teaches history from their own perspective and they like to emphasize certain
areas more than others. But think about it. Written history in other parts of the world reaches all the way down to 5000 years ago (~3000 BC), the US history taught in my school in the USA concentrated on the last three centuries. That makes the balance 300 years in detail for app. ten years and 5000 years in half a year…
I was also told that world history would be taugh in more detail in college/university but don’t you think that it is a bit too late for many people?
Is this one of the issues where (false?) patriotism runs wild when you think what kind of perspective many people might have gained from better understanding of the world and different nations and religions?
dingo August 1st, 2007 2:54 am
You’re not missing anything. Mr. Carroll’s bizarre statement about the “absurdity” of an endless occupation of Iraq indicates the onset of Alzheimer’s.
As has been said, but I am not sure who the qoute is attributed too, “that Public education is nothing more then imposed ignorance”.
As is just about everything else you see and hear in the mainstream.
Bear with me on this , I need to get it off my chest.
CNN HEADLINE NEWS
We have a television in our break room at work and it is often tuned to “CNN Headline News” much to my dismay .Someone seems to think that what they report on that channel is news.
To me it is like watching the National Enquirer. It is terrible!
Most of what they report borders on the level of the cat in the tree story, as it pertains to what is important in our lives.
Absolutely useless INFORMATION!
How can they get away with calling what they report,news?
The guy who wrote this story is a nobody. James Carroll? Who ever heard of him? What can he possibly know about celebrity? The closest he ever came was talking to somebody whose house a celebrity once lived in. Upton Lewis? Lewis Upton? Who cares? Personally, I read Gibbon in the check-out line at the supermarket, and sometimes I read it aloud for the benefit of the other shoppers. Most of them assume that I’m some kind of celebrity, because I’m usually drunk and I never take off my Ray-Bans! So they listen respectfully while I explain that Gibbon gave Septimus Severus a really bad rap because when he was writing that chapter he had just been rejected by the love of his life, who was also the greatest female celebrity of the Eighteenth Century! And if celebrity screwed up history for Gibbon, what are the rest of us supposed to do?
dingo and purvis,
i believe the word ‘absurdity’ modifies the democrats’ rhetoric, not the occupation.
although, of course, just being there is absurd.
dingo and purvis,
It is the democrats’ rhetoric implying that they are “antiwar” that is absurd. When they say they want US “out of Iraq”, they mean a withdrawal of some troops, with a US presence remaining to protect “our vital interests.” That remaining presence is part of a permanent US war machine.
The DNC democrats support the US war machine economy. They are funded by weapons manufacturers and represent their employees in their districts. They are obligated to support the war machine. They are not “antiwar.”
I cannot believe this person writes for the Boston Globe, I will have to bookmark his future writings, this essay is profound in its blinding honesty.
Dingo: what he means is embodied in the latest pronouncement by faux progressive Barrack Obama about ‘redeploying’ the war machine into Pakistan. No one goes home, no demilitarization, just an aggressive redirection which assumes America’s continued love affair with militarism and the use of that military power to bully the world.
Well, I am dumbfounded for the first time in my history of reading the comments that this usually erudite collection of contributing thinkers make. It seems to me most missed the point, and have gone off on tangents, which illustrates the article’s message beautifully.
I see why. The point is in the article’s title. However, the author used an example that is probably not within the ken of your history. When you think celebrity you think Tom Cruise, Julia Roberts and other delivery boys. Authors today are rarely perceived as celebrities (Brown, Rowling and King are exceptions not the rule), so it is probably a bad choice on the author’s part although the incident described smacks of authenticity and obviously inspired the article and its insight, illustrating the issue rather precisely if not in such contemporary terms.
The cult of celebrity is a superficial distraction masterfully employed by the corporatorcracy to keep the American public (and I include the western demographic in the use of that particular marketing term) stupid and consuming (all the superficialities on offer). All of which continues to flow dollars into the US GDP and tax dollars into the war machine America turned on and “forgot” to turn off, and is now utterly addicted to.
Therein, however, lies weakness, which will eventually be exploited and I dread the potential of the debacle that may follow. Imperial conflagrations are not pretty sparkly affairs. You do have a madman (or two, three…) at the helm and he does have WMD in the desert.
So focus people.
This article hits a nail on the head. Thank you James Carroll, who surprisingly writes for the Boston Globe.