Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why I Call Myself a Socialist: Is the World Really a Stage?
In most reasonably large towns in the United States and Europe, you can find, on some important public square or street, a professional theater. And so, in various quiet neighborhoods in these towns, you can usually also find some rather quiet individuals, the actors who work regularly in that theater, individuals whose daily lives center around lawns and cars and cooking and shopping and occasionally the athletic events of children, but who surprisingly at night put on the robes of kings and wizards, witches and queens, and for their particular community temporarily embody the darkest needs and loftiest hopes of the human species.
The actor's role in the community is quite unlike anyone else's. Businessmen, for example, don't take their clothes off or cry in front of strangers in the course of their work. Actors do.
Contrary to the popular misconception, the actor is not necessarily a specialist in imitating or portraying what he knows about other people. On the contrary, the actor may simply be a person who's more willing than others to reveal some truths about himself. Interestingly, the actress who, in her own persona, may be gentle, shy, and socially awkward, someone whose hand trembles when pouring a cup of tea for a visiting friend, can convincingly portray an elegant, cruel aristocrat tossing off malicious epigrams in an eighteenth-century chocolate house.
On stage, her hand doesn't shake when she pours the cup of chocolate, nor does she hesitate when passing along the vilest gossip about her closest friends. The actress's next-door neighbors, who may not have had the chance to see her perform, might say that the person they know could never have been, under any circumstances, either elegant or cruel. But she knows the truth that in fact she could have been either or both, and when she plays her part, she's simply showing the audience what she might have been, if she'd in fact been an aristocrat in a chocolate house in the eighteenth century.We are not what we seem. We are more than what we seem. The actor knows that. And because the actor knows that hidden inside himself there's a wizard and a king, he also knows that when he's playing himself in his daily life, he's playing a part, he's performing, just as he's performing when he plays a part on stage. He knows that when he's on stage performing, he's in a sense deceiving his friends in the audience less than he does in daily life, not more, because on stage he's disclosing the parts of himself that in daily life he struggles to hide. He knows, in fact, that the role of himself is actually a rather small part, and that when he plays that part he must make an enormous effort to conceal the whole universe of possibilities that exists inside him.
Actors are treated as uncanny beings by non-actors because of the strange voyage into themselves that actors habitually make, traveling outside the small territory of traits that are seen by their daily acquaintances as "them." Actors, in contrast, look at non-actors with a certain bewilderment, and secretly think: What an odd life those people lead! Doesn't it get a bit-claustrophobic?
The Haircut Speaks
It's commonly noted that we all come into the world naked. And at the beginning of each day, most of us find ourselves naked once again, in that strange suspended moment before we put on our clothes.
In various religions, priests put on their clothes quite solemnly, according to a ritual. Policemen, soldiers, janitors, and hotel maids get up in the morning, get dressed, go to work, go to their locker rooms, remove their clothes, and get dressed again in their respective uniforms. The actor goes to the theater, goes to his dressing room, and puts on his costume. And as he does so, he remembers the character he's going to play -- how the character feels, how the character speaks. The actor, in costume, looks in the mirror, and it all comes back to him.
When the actor steps onto the stage to begin the play, he wants to convince the audience that what they're seeing is not a play, but reality itself. The costume that the actor wears, and the voice, the diction, the accent, the way of speaking that begin to return to the actor when he puts on the costume, are devices designed to set in motion a capacity possessed by every member of the audience, a special human capacity whose existence as part of our genetic makeup is what makes theater possible -- that is, our capacity to believe what we want and need to believe about any person who is not ourself.
Because
let's be frank -- other people are not me, and people who are not me
will always in a way be alien to me, they will always in a way be
strangers to me, and I will never know with any certainty what they're
like. So yes, it's possible to believe a fantasy about them.
Now, I've never met my own genes or looked at them under a microscope, but nonetheless I feel I can make some guesses about what they're like. One thing I feel I know is that I'm amazingly responsive to visual cues about other people, and I'm prepared to guess that this is characteristic of our entire species. And this is why people who can afford it spend enormous sums of money on haircuts and clothes. And this is why films, which deal in close-ups, put an enormous amount of attention on makeup and hair. And this is why actors in plays take their costumes very, very seriously.
It's all because people really do believe what visual cues say. A haircut dramatically changes how we see a person. A haircut can say, "I'm intelligent, disciplined, precise, and dynamic." A different haircut can say, "I'm not very bright, I'm sort of a slob, I don't care what happens to me, I don't care what you think of me." There are haircuts that can say, "I find sex an interesting subject, I'm interested in how I look, I'm rather fun, and I think life is great," and there are haircuts that say, "I'm not interested in sex, and I think life is awful."
Clothes work in a different way. While the shape of one's head, as completed by one's hair, describes personality, clothes tell us about a person's role in society. But there's an extraordinary similarity in the speed with which we respond to the cues from haircuts and from clothes and in the strength of our belief that what they're telling us is true. So when the actor comes on stage in the costume of a king, I'm prepared to believe that he is a king.
The actor on stage is living in reality. He knows that there is indeed a king inside him. But he also knows very well that Fate has made him an actor and not actually a king. The audience member looking at the actor on stage steps out of reality and lives in illusion until the curtain comes down.
Are You Smarter Than Thomas Jefferson?
Our capacity to fantasize about other people and to believe our own fantasies makes it possible for us to enjoy this valuable art form, theater. But unfortunately it's a capacity which has brought incalculable harm and suffering to human beings.
It's well known what grief and even danger can result when we make use of this capacity in our romantic lives and eagerly ascribe to a potential partner benevolent characteristics which are based on our hopes and not on truth.
And one can hardly begin to describe the anguish caused by our habit of using our fantasizing capacity in the opposite direction, that is, using it to ascribe negative characteristics to people who, for one reason or another, we'd like to think less of. Sometimes we do this in regard to large groups of people, none of whom we've met. But we can even apply our remarkable capacity in relation to individuals or groups whom we know rather well, sometimes simply to make ourselves feel better about things that we happen to have done to them or are planning to do.
You couldn't exactly say, for example, that Thomas Jefferson had no familiarity with dark-skinned people. His problem was that he couldn't figure out how to live the life he in fact was living unless he owned these people as slaves. And as it would have been unbearable to him to see himself as so heartless, unjust, and cruel as to keep in bondage people who were just like himself, he ignored the evidence that was in front of his eyes and clung to the fantasy that people from Africa were not his equals.
Well, one could write an entire political history of the human race by simply recounting the exhausting cycle of fantasies which different groups have believed at different times about different other groups. Of course these fantasies were absurd in every case.
After a while one does grasp the pattern. Africans, Jews, Mexicans, same-sex lovers, women. Hmm, after a certain period of time somebody says: well, actually, they're not that different from anybody else, they have the same capacities, I don't like all of them, some of them are geniuses, etc. etc. The revelations are always in the same direction. We learn about one group or another the thing that actors quickly learn in relation to themselves when they become actors: people are more than they seem to be.
We're all rather good at seeing through last year's fantasies and moving on -- and rather proud of it too. "Oh yes, after voting for Barack Obama, we took a marvelous vacation in Vietnam," "We went to a reading of the poetry of Octavio Paz with our friends the Goldsteins, and we saw Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi there -- they looked fantastic"... whatever.
It's this year's fantasies that present a difficulty.
Are we more brilliant than Thomas Jefferson? Hmm -- probably not. So there's our situation: it's delightfully easy to see through illusions held by people far away or by members of one's own group a century ago or a decade ago or a year ago. But this doesn't seem to help us to see through the illusions which, at any given moment, happen to be shared by the people who surround us, our friends, our family, the people we trust.
Sorting Babies on the Global Market
Around 400,000 babies are born on earth each day. Some are born irreparably damaged, casualties of the conditions in which their mothers lived -- malnutrition, polluted water, mysterious chemicals that sneak into the body and warp the genes. But the much more tragic and more horrible truth is that most of these babies are born healthy. There's nothing wrong with them. Every one of them is ready to develop into a person whose intelligence, insight, aesthetic taste, and love of other people could help to make the world a better place. Every one of them is ready to become a person who wakes up happily in the morning because they know they're going to spend the day doing work they find fascinating, work that they love. They're born with all the genetic gifts they could possibly need. Wiggling beside their mothers, they have no idea what's going to be done to them.
In the old days of the Soviet Five-Year Plans, the planners tried to determine what ought to happen to the babies born under their jurisdiction. They would calculate how many managers the economy needed, how many researchers, how many factory workers. And the Soviet leaders would organize society in an attempt to channel the right number of people into each category. In most of the world today, the invisible hand of the global market performs this function.
I've sometimes noted that many people in my generation, born during World War II, are obsessed, as I am, by the image of the trains arriving at the railroad station at Auschwitz and the way that the S.S. officers who greeted the trains would perform on the spot what was called a "selection," choosing a few of those getting off of each train to be slave laborers, who would get to live for as long as they were needed, while everyone else would be sent to the gas chambers almost immediately. And just as inexorable as were these "selections" are the determinations made by the global market when babies are born. The global market selects out a tiny group of privileged babies who are born in certain parts of certain towns in certain countries, and these babies are allowed to lead privileged lives. Some will be scientists, some will be bankers. Some will command, rule, and grow fantastically rich, and others will become more modestly paid intellectuals or teachers or artists. But all the members of this tiny group will have the chance to develop their minds and realize their talents.
As for all the other babies, the market sorts them and stamps labels onto them and hurls them violently into various pits, where an appropriate upbringing and preparation are waiting for them. If the market thinks that workers will be needed in electronics factories, a hundred thousand babies will be stamped with the label "factory worker" and thrown down into a certain particular pit. And when the moment comes when one of the babies is fully prepared and old enough to work, she'll crawl out of the pit, and she'll find herself standing at the gate of a factory in India or in China or in Mexico, and she'll stand at her workstation for 16 hours a day, she'll sleep in the factory's dormitory, she won't be allowed to speak to her fellow workers, she'll have to ask for permission to go the bathroom, she'll be subjected to the sexual whims of her boss, and she'll be breathing fumes day and night that will make her ill and lead to her death at an early age. And when she has died, one will be able to say about her that she worked, like a nurse, not to benefit herself, but to benefit others. Except that a nurse works to benefit the sick, while the factory worker will have worked to benefit the owners of her factory. She will have devoted her hours, her consideration, her energy and strength to increasing their wealth. She will have lived and died for that. And it's not that anyone sadly concluded when she was born that she lacked the talent to become, let's say, a violinist, a conductor, or perhaps another Beethoven. The reason she was sent to the factory and not to the concert hall was not that she lacked ability but that the market wanted workers, and so she was assigned to be one.
And during the period when all the babies who are born have been sorted into their different categories and labeled, during the period when you could say that they're being nourished in their pens until they're ready to go to work, they're all assigned appropriate costumes. And once they know what costume they'll wear, each individual is given an accent, a way of speaking, some characteristic personality traits, and a matching body type, and each person's face starts slowly to specialize in certain expressions which coordinate well with their personality, body type, and costume. And so each person comes to understand what role he will play, and so each can consistently select and reproduce, through all the decades and changes of fashion, the appropriate style and wardrobe, for the rest of his life.
The Peace of Death
Even those of us who were selected out from the general group have our role and our costume. I happen to play a semi-prosperous fortunate bohemian, not doing too badly, nor too magnificently. And as I walk out onto the street on a sunny day, dressed in my fortunate bohemian costume, I pass, for example, the burly cop on the beat, I pass the weedy professor in his rumpled jacket, distractedly ruminating as he shambles along, I see couples in elegant suits briskly rushing to their meetings, I see the art student and the law student, and in the background, sometimes looming up as they come a bit closer, those not particularly selected out -- the drug-store cashier in her oddly matched pink shirt and green slacks, the wacky street hustler with his crazy dialect and his crazy gestures, the wisecracking truck drivers with their round bellies and leering grins, the grim-faced domestic worker who's slipped out from her employer's house and now races into a shop to do an errand, and I see nothing, I think nothing, I have no reaction to what I'm seeing, because I believe it all.
I simply believe it. I believe the costumes. I believe the characters. And then for one instant, as the woman runs into the shop, I suddenly see what's happening, the way a drowning man might have one last vivid glimpse of the glittering shore, and I feel like screaming out, "Stop! Stop! This isn't real! It's all a fantasy! It's all a play! The people in these costumes are not what you think! The accents are fake, the expressions are fake -- Don't you see? It's all --"
One instant -- and then it's gone. My mind goes blank for a moment, and then I'm back to where I was. The domestic worker runs out of the shop and hurries back toward her job, and once again I see her only as the character she plays. I see a person who works as a servant. And surely that person could never have lived, for example, the life I've lived, or been like me -- she's not intelligent enough. She had to be a servant. She was born that way. The hustler surely had to be a hustler, it's all he could do, the cashier could never have worn beautiful clothes, she could never have been someone who sought out what was beautiful, she could only ever have worn that pink shirt and those green slacks.
So, just as Thomas Jefferson lived in illusion, because he couldn't face the truth about the slaves that he owned, I, too, put to use every second of my life, like my beating heart, this capacity to fantasize which we've all been granted as our dubious birthright. My belief in the performance unfolding before me allows me not to remember those dreadful moments when all of those babies were permanently maimed, and I was spared. The world hurled the infant who became the domestic worker to the bottom of a pit and crippled her for life, and I saw it happen, but I can't remember it now. And so it seems quite wonderful to me that the world today treats the domestic worker and me with scrupulous equality.
It seems wonderfully right. If I steal a car, I go to jail, and if she steals a car, she goes to jail. If I drive on the highway, I pay a toll, and if she drives on the highway, she pays a toll. We compete on an equal basis for the things we want. If I apply for a job, I take the test, and if she applies for the job, she takes the test. And I go through my life thinking it's all quite fair.
If we look at reality for more than an instant, if we look at the human beings passing us on the street, it's not bearable. It's not bearable to watch while the talents and the abilities of infants and children are crushed and destroyed. These happen to be things that I just can't think about. And most of the time, the factory workers and domestic workers and cashiers and truck drivers can't think about them either. Their performances as these characters are consistent and convincing, because they actually believe about themselves just what I believe about them -- that what they are now is all that they could ever have been, they could never have been anything other than what they are. Of course, that's what we all have to believe, so that we can bear our lives and live in peace together. But it's the peace of death.
Actors understand the infinite vastness hiding inside each human being, the characters not played, the characteristics not revealed. Schoolteachers can see every day that, given the chance, the sullen pupil in the back row can sing, dance, juggle, do mathematics, paint, and think. If the play we're watching is an illusion, if the baby who now wears the costume of the hustler in fact had the capacity to become a biologist or a doctor, a circus performer or a poet or a scholar of ancient Greek, then the division of labor, as now practiced, is inherently immoral, and we must somehow learn a different way to share out all the work that needs to be done. The costumes are wrong. They have to be discarded. We have to start out naked again and go from there
72 Comments so far
Show AllWallace Shawn's piece definitely resonates with my own belief that society determines our destiny more than our selves. If we are ever to have just conditions and freedom, we need to have a good system. Instead, most people just get channeled into serving the elite of society, then make the best of it psychologically and socially by living in collective illusion.
So, how can we develop better societies? Exploitative capitalism sides with the rich, creating illusionary "democracies" that uphold a "free" market, which brainwashes everyone into eating and drinking products that make them obese, diabetic and addicted, all while they are afraid to lose their little role in the process that pays them to participate.
My Revolution or Extinction http://www.lulu.com/product/file-download/revolution-or-extinction/11772671 (click on free download)offers a true story of the recent psychotic and psycho-pathological history of the United States of America's illusionary democracy. Shawn's essay is just a beginning.
I also suggest some solutions.
Bingo.
"...society determines our destiny more than our selves. If we are ever to have just conditions and freedom, we need to have a good system. Instead, most people just get channeled into serving the elite of society, then make the best of it psychologically and socially by living in collective illusion."
That is exactly what the article is about, and you just described socialism - with one exception. You call this your "belief." I call it observation of objective reality.
Thanks Marcos, for the link, I've just downloaded the book. The main problem as far as I'm aware, is that a great majority of human beings have bought into the lie (and you can't blame them, I for one once believed the hype until I started reading a lot and doing my own independent investigation). A lot of people just aspire to, "one day having a crack at being one of Them" they don't question the ridiculousness of these assumptions, they are resigned to their fate. Undoing that kind of thinking is gonna take a while. I've just forwarded Wallace's article to a group of friends, about 20, who regularly discuss these issues and we all belong to a certain class; the people who need to read this kind of material CAN'T EVEN READ OR WRITE. I agree with you, this is just the beginning and there's a long way to go...especially where I live (internet access here is a bit of a luxury)
"If the play we're watching is an illusion, if the baby who now wears the costume of the hustler in fact had the capacity to become a biologist or a doctor... then the division of labor... is inherently immoral, and we must somehow learn a different way to share out all the work that needs to be done. The costumes are wrong. They have to be discarded. We have to start out naked again and go from there."
'Its inconceivable' that this wonderful essay came from an actor, yet it is here for us to read. And, somewhere in Egypt a million souls are stepping naked into a new reality. They've already taken up Shawns advice. We should do the same.
Hey, wait a minute!
Do you mean to say that all the world really IS just a stage we're going through?
LOL. Good one.
Yes, this "stage" that we have been forced onto and the roles we are being forced to play are just a "stage" we are going through.
I admit an affection for Wallace Shawn...I find him wonderful, and this piece speaks to me deeply...
shattering the illusion he describes so well, creating a world in which the momentary glimpse of truth need not immediately recoil back into the shell of denial, is the task of our time...
this world would require a much more intimate relationship between the individual and the planet...
we would have to do it together, and it will be difficult...
Global Start Date: September 22, 2012...
unanimous, worldwide rejection of the modern world and the underlying constructs...
cessation of industry and property ownership...voiding of contract and title...local engagement in resource management and defense...
if you have yet to see, or read, My Dinner With Andre, it is fabulous...
My Dinner With Andre is fabulous. Hadn't heard anyone mention that is years.
Someone asked you is we should give up modern medicine. I would say that we need to be willing to give it up, if that is what has to happen for us to be free. Of course then someone will snidely say "freedom to die from cholera??"
Dubet, are you recommending we live like the Amish but without the religion thingy? Do we also give up all the medical and scientific advances that have been made over the centuries?
we give up what we must to maintain our world...the priority reverses...
certainly, I am not alone in this realization...
is it not understandable that, to follow the analogy in this work, to put on a play, one must have actors, a theater, an audience, a script, etc.?
we are destroying all of these things, the actors, the theater, the audience, the script, but acting as if the show will go on...
there are minimal life requirements, and if our habits are devastating those, then those habits must change, or we perish...
perish is the word I use to describe...
regarding advances...that word becomes hard to justify given current circumstances and trends...what value any individual advance amidst global collapse?
Kind of like highlighting Gandhi while Afghanistan is going on...yeah, so?
the question could be reduced: is it worth destroying the planet to save the lives of millions? to save one?
the obvious answer to both is no...the planet is a fundamental requirement...
finally, we come to: is it worth destroying people to save the planet? which?
What a wonderful, whimsical, insightful, piece!
The person missing in his play-reality, of domestic workers, durg-store workers, hustlers, biologists, etc. are that certain percentage of humans who suffer a psychopathic need for instant gratificaton, so they don't have the patience (or are just too dumb) be be a scientist, a doctor, or skilled tradesperson. So they pursue one thing - money and power. And these psychopaths determine the fate of all the others who must sell the gratest part of their living existence, for as low a price as they must, or they end up under a bridge until they freeze or starve.
Basically that is what it boils doen to. A society with dumb selfish brutes ruling over the intelligent and compassisonate. Positively Vonnegutian.
For a more objective look at the problem, I recommmend the discussion-film "Capitalism and Other Kids Stuff". It is avaialble by torrent download on onebigtorrent.org. I'll start seeding the file when I get home this evening.
I didn't have the patience to read the first half - it was so boring, even to skim. And I don't really want to have that much patience - it has nothing to do with 'instant gratification' - more like incoherence.
Well then, at least go here:
http://onebigtorrent.org/torrents/7372/Capitalism-and-other-Kids-Stuff--Newer-Fancy-Version
..and start downloading. It is an mp4 file. I am seeding now.
If you're that easily bored, then just type "tl;dr" and save yourself and us the trouble of a feeble justification for not even trying.
If it doesn't interest you, then ignore it. If it does interest you - enough to keep posting about it - why not read it?
It is great, isn't it?
People have some idea fixed in their minds as to what Socialism "is" and cannot see anything in the article that matches up with those misconceptions, and without the usual cues to trigger their preconceptions, they can't decipher it.
Thanks for the link. I have never done bit-torrent downloads and am having a little trouble. I will make a fresh stab at it in the AM.
Color me dense today. Why DO you call yourself a socialist? I know I'm a pretty literal guy, but I guess I missed it in this essay. Too bad - we need to get rid of the 'socialist' stigma and get back in touch with our '10's-'30's radical heritage (been reading John Dos Passos lately).
I agree BeRad, I also wish that Shawn had gone into more detail and explication about his socialism and what he would wish for our society. Maybe I am dense, but the title sort of does not match up with the article; the title sets up an expectation for an article dealing more literally with socialism. Don't get me wrong, the article was great, I liked it and I do admire Shawn. Socialism is a pejorative in our society and conjures up visions of Stalin and Mao. Oh wait, we're friends with commie China because they have adopted predatory capitalism as their economic model. Capitalism obviously has nothing to do with freedom or democracy. Capitalism can flourish in a communist police state like China or a fascist dictatorship like Mussolini's Italy or Hitler's Germany.
FWIW, here's what he says, in the final paragraph:
"If the play we're watching is an illusion, if the baby who now wears the costume of the hustler in fact had the capacity to become a biologist or a doctor, a circus performer or a poet or a scholar of ancient Greek, then the division of labor, as now practiced, is inherently immoral, and we must somehow learn a different way to share out all the work that needs to be done."
"...the division of labor, as now practiced, is inherently immoral, and we must somehow learn a different way to share out all the work that needs to be done."
A couple other brief cites:
"The world hurled the infant who became the domestic worker to the bottom of a pit and crippled her for life..."
"It's not bearable to watch while the talents and the abilities of infants and children are crushed and destroyed."
Capitalism "hurls infants to the bottom of a pit and cripples them for life" and "crushes and destroys the talents and abilities of infants and children." Capitalism destroys our capacity to be fully human, and must be replaced.
Shawn goes into no detail about how to replace it, or what the socialism would look like that we replace it with. But he didn't say he would.
Shawn's beautiful piece could also be titled something like "Why i call myself a Buddhist" or the like.
The concept that "i" am not who / what "i" believe i am, that my ego, my identity, are NOT "me" even though i believe they are, and that learning how to wake up naked and remain naked is the greatest challenge and truest experience there is.
i'm not a believer in reincarnation, but the Buddhist understanding of self, ego, identity, i find brilliant.
No, I think it quite specifically is about Socialism.
The concept that "i" am not who / what "i" believe i am, that my ego, my identity, are NOT "me" even though i believe they are, and that learning how to wake up naked and remain naked is the greatest challenge and truest experience there is.
That is only one dimension of the article. The more important point is the social conditioning that forces false (or less than ideal) identities on us, and that social conditioning serves the masters and makes pf the rest of us slaves. The author came at it obliquely, because readers are so indoctrinated and closed to seeing this.
It is no accident that the author used the word "Socialist" in the title. The article is then packed with examples of social inequalities - not "hints" but rather the very crux of the issue, the main theme of the article.
People are missing it not because they cannot find Socialism in the article, but rather because they have found it and don't recognize it. They canl;t find what they think Socialism is.
TA,
As always, you are free to impose your assessment of importance on what someone says. Say whatever you need to to me, or about "people."
Your understanding of the nature of reality does not define reality; it only defines your understanding of the nature of reality. You keep conflating the two.
It is interesting to see you describe reality. But whatever makes you happy, right? Either way, i'm sure you won't take this for what it is.
How about you share your point of view and stop worrying about me? Respond to the message, don't talk about the messenger.
i'm certainly not worrying about you, don't you worry about that. i'll respond to whatever i respond to. You're obviously free to advise otherwise. Thanks for the advice.
Well there you go then.
"And did you exchange
a walk on part in the war
for a lead role in a cage?"
Pink Floyd
"Wish You Were Here"
thank you for this piece...a little touch for the moment... in the heart and the soul.....
My one regret in life is that I am not someone else.
--Woody Allen
I'm glad I skipped over the first half of this essay and skimmed for relevance, because the second half was really good. I couldn't care less about all the junk about actors - the anecdotal information that was more than I wanted to know (about this person's thought-processes), but the commentary about the illusions of life were indeed profound. Too bad someone didn't edit this so more people would be inclined to read the more relevant parts. It just took too long to get to the important points - and they were well worth considering. Great half-of-an-essay, but I certainly wouldn't read a book with this much boring introductory information - if you can call it that. (What a waste of ink and paper - and then what a great close. Unfathomable to me.)
Armybrat, I usually find your comments worth reading. But in this case, your complaints are silly. The first part of the essay prepares the reader for the second part by setting up the psychology of the actor, from which an actor can see through the parts played in real life.
Maybe you're too easily bored by writing that does not immediately appeal to you. Here, you sound like one of my freshman English students, whining without patience.
This thoughtfully playful, though not whimsical, essay is certainly a change of pace from the standard CD fare.
YMMV, but it's obvious that it simply went over some of the commenter's heads.
Lot's of (good) articles are left unread because they do not catch the interest and attention of the reader in the first paragraph. I guess journalism classes aren't the same as freshman English - but I doubt if this guy would have received much of grade from such a submission... even in English 101...
But why does he call himself a socialist? What's the connection?
Elaborating slightly on what i posted above:
Well, he doesn't quite get to that. FWIW, here's what he says, in the final paragraph:
"If the play we're watching is an illusion, if the baby who now wears the costume of the hustler in fact had the capacity to become a biologist or a doctor, a circus performer or a poet or a scholar of ancient Greek, then the division of labor, as now practiced, is inherently immoral, and we must somehow learn a different way to share out all the work that needs to be done."
"...the division of labor, as now practiced, is inherently immoral, and we must somehow learn a different way to share out all the work that needs to be done." Given his headline, Shawn sees socialism as "a different way to share out all the work that needs to be done."
A couple other brief cites:
"The world hurled the infant who became the domestic worker to the bottom of a pit and crippled her for life..."
"It's not bearable to watch while the talents and the abilities of infants and children are crushed and destroyed."
Capitalism "hurls infants to the bottom of a pit and cripples them for life" and "crushes and destroys the talents and abilities of infants and children." Capitalism destroys our capacity to be fully human, and must be replaced.
Shawn goes into no detail about how to replace it, or what the socialism would look like that we replace it with. But he didn't say he would.
Since the thrust of his argument concerned identity, I would have thought a title like "Why I call myself a Buddhist," or "Why I am not a Behavioralist" would be more to the point. Identities are socially manufactured, but to what purpose? That is the missing link here, as I see it: the underlying connection to class and its dominant, anti-human badguys who are considered to be the foundation of freedom by all who endorse capital.
Yup. Well put. However, in support of Shawn, maybe its better that he didn't 'play to the label'. Since we're all conditioned by Glenn Beck, now, 'socialist' means whatever Beck means it to say. That's exactly why rightwing pundits are hung up on labels: they want to hammer them into signs and hang them on whomever they choose. Shawns long, rambling essay describes, in the end, a human being, a concerned partner in a social network. He calls that a 'socialist'; he knows we may label it however we please.
I thought it was a quite brilliant approach, and reminded me of Jack London's "How I Became A Socialist." (It is short, maybe I will post it here.)
People are having trouble because they can't "find" the "Socialism." What they can't find is the lies, misconceptions, and deceptions they have been fed all their lives about Socialism.
continued...
I found there all sorts of men, many of whom had once been as good as myself and just as blond-beast; sailor-men, soldier-men, labor-men, all wrenched and distorted and twisted out of shape by toil and hardship and accident, and cast adrift by their masters like so many old horses. I battered on the drag and slammed back gates with them, or shivered with them in box cars and city parks, listening the while to life-histories which began under auspices as fair as mine, with digestions and bodies equal to and better than mine, and which ended there before my eyes in the shambles at the bottom of the Social Pit.
And as I listened my brain began to work. The woman of the streets and the man of the gutter drew very close to me. I saw the picture of the Social Pit as vividly as though it were a concrete thing, and at the bottom of the Pit I saw them, myself above them, not far, and hanging on to the slippery wall by main strength and sweat. And I confess a terror seized me. What when my strength failed? when I should be unable to work shoulder to shoulder with the strong men who were as yet babes unborn? And there and then I swore a great oath. It ran something like this: All my days I have worked hard with my body, and according to the number of days I have worked, by just that much am I nearer the bottom of the Pit. I shall climb out of the Pit, but not by the muscles of my body shall I climb out. I shall do no more hard work, and may God strike me dead if I do another day's hard work with my body more than I absolutely have to do. And I have been busy ever since running away from hard work.
Incidentally, while tramping some ten thousand miles through the United States and Canada, I strayed into Niagara Falls, was nabbed by a fee-hunting constable, denied the right to plead guilty or not guilty, sentenced out of hand to thirty days' imprisonment for having no fixed abode and no visible means of support, handcuffed and chained to a bunch of men similarly circumstanced, carted down country to Buffalo, registered at the Erie County Penitentiary, had my head clipped and my budding mustache shaved, was dressed in convict stripes, compulsorily vaccinated by a medical student who practised on such as we, made to march the lock-step, and put to work under the eyes of guards armed with Winchester rifles--all for adventuring in blond-beastly fashion. Concerning further details deponent sayeth not, though he may hint that some of his plethoric national patriotism simmered down and leaked out of the bottom of his soul somewhere--at least, since that experience he finds that he cares more for men and women and little children than for imaginary geographical lines.
* * * * * * *
To return to my conversion. I think it is apparent that my rampant individualism was pretty effectively hammered out of me, and something else as effectively hammered in. But, just as I had been an individualist without knowing it, I was now a Socialist without knowing it, withal, an unscientific one. I had been reborn, but not renamed, and I was running around to find out what manner of thing I was. I ran back to California and opened the books. I do not remember which ones I opened first. It is an unimportant detail anyway. I was already It, whatever It was, and by aid of the books I discovered that It was a Socialist. Since that day I have opened many books, but no economic argument, no lucid demonstration of the logic and inevitableness of Socialism affects me as profoundly and convincingly as I was affected on the day when I first saw the walls of the Social Pit rise around me and felt myself slipping down, down, into the shambles at the bottom.
How I Became A Socialist
Jack London - 1905
It is quite fair to say that I became a Socialist in a fashion somewhat similar to the way in which the Teutonic pagans became Christians--it was hammered into me. Not only was I not looking for Socialism at the time of my conversion, but I was fighting it. I was very young and callow, did not know much of anything, and though I had never even heard of a school called "Individualism," I sang the paean of the strong with all my heart.
This was because I was strong myself. By strong I mean that I had good health and hard muscles, both of which possessions are easily accounted for. I had lived my childhood on California ranches, my boyhood hustling newspapers on the streets of a healthy Western city, and my youth on the ozone-laden waters of San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. I loved life in the open, and I toiled in the open, at the hardest kinds of work. Learning no trade, but drifting along from job to job, I looked on the world and called it good, every bit of it. Let me repeat, this optimism was because I was healthy and strong, bothered with neither aches nor weaknesses, never turned down by the boss because I did not look fit, able always to get a job at shovelling coal, sailorizing, or manual labor of some sort.
And because of all this, exulting in my young life, able to hold my own at work or fight, I was a rampant individualist. It was very natural. I was a winner. Wherefore I called the game, as I saw it played, or thought I saw it played, a very proper game for MEN. To be a MAN was to write man in large capitals on my heart. To adventure like a man, and fight like a man, and do a man's work (even for a boy's pay)--these were things that reached right in and gripped hold of me as no other thing could. And I looked ahead into long vistas of a hazy and interminable future, into which, playing what I conceived to be MAN'S game, I should continue to travel with unfailing health, without accidents, and with muscles ever vigorous. As I say, this future was interminable. I could see myself only raging through life without end like one of Nietzsche's blond-beasts, lustfully roving and conquering by sheer superiority and strength.
As for the unfortunates, the sick, and ailing, and old, and maimed, I must confess I hardly thought of them at all, save that I vaguely felt that they, barring accidents, could be as good as I if they wanted to real hard, and could work just as well. Accidents? Well, they represented FATE, also spelled out in capitals, and there was no getting around FATE. Napoleon had had an accident at Waterloo, but that did not dampen my desire to be another and later Napoleon. Further, the optimism bred of a stomach which could digest scrap iron and a body which flourished on hardships did not permit me to consider accidents as even remotely related to my glorious personality.
I hope I have made it clear that I was proud to be one of Nature's strong-armed noblemen. The dignity of labor was to me the most impressive thing in the world. Without having read Carlyle, or Kipling, I formulated a gospel of work which put theirs in the shade. Work was everything. It was sanctification and salvation. The pride I took in a hard day's work well done would be inconceivable to you. It is almost inconceivable to me as I look back upon it. I was as faithful a wage slave as ever capitalist exploited. To shirk or malinger on the man who paid me my wages was a sin, first, against myself, and second, against him. I considered it a crime second only to treason and just about as bad.
In short, my joyous individualism was dominated by the orthodox bourgeois ethics. I read the bourgeois papers, listened to the bourgeois preachers, and shouted at the sonorous platitudes of the bourgeois politicians. And I doubt not, if other events had not changed my career, that I should have evolved into a professional strike-breaker, (one of President Eliot's American heroes), and had my head and my earning power irrevocably smashed by a club in the hands of some militant trades-unionist.
Just about this time, returning from a seven months' voyage before the mast, and just turned eighteen, I took it into my head to go tramping. On rods and blind baggages I fought my way from the open West where men bucked big and the job hunted the man, to the congested labor centres of the East, where men were small potatoes and hunted the job for all they were worth. And on this new blond-beast adventure I found myself looking upon life from a new and totally different angle. I had dropped down from the proletariat into what sociologists love to call the "submerged tenth," and I was startled to discover the way in which that submerged tenth was recruited.
continued...
"If the play we're watching is an illusion, if the baby who now wears the costume of the hustler in fact had the capacity to become a biologist or a doctor, a circus performer or a poet or a scholar of ancient Greek, then the division of labor, as now practiced, is inherently immoral, and we must somehow learn a different way to share out all the work that needs to be done. "
The division of labor. Socialism is about perceiving and analyzing that, and the social conditions it causes, and the impact of those social conditions on all of us.
What happens if, when we discard the costumes, we find that MacBeth was right: we find that "life is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing?"
Actually, I liked the first part where he wrote about his own internal experience with acting and the theatre. I disliked his dissertation on the structure of society. It was fatuous and condescending. Indeed, Why does he call himself a socialist with statements like, " in most of the world today the invisible hand of the market of the global market performs this function" (of channeling the right numbers of peoples into the right niches). That's right out of Adam Smith. "they actually believe about themselves what I believe about them..." Really now, Wallace Shawn can read minds. I find this as insulting as his overdrawn stereotypes: "wisecracking truckdrivers with their leering grins and big bellies", The whacky street hustler with his crazy dialect and crazy gestures", etc... It sounds more like a list of stock characters in some third-rate play than a description of a real neighborhood. The silliest statement in the whole piece, "And so it seems quite wonderful to me that the world today treats the domestic worker and me with scrupulous equality". I couldn't imagine a better non sequitur to throw into this piece.
Well, you miss some points here.
Especially your last point about his "scrupulous equality" statement: Shawn is ripping himself with this. Do you not see that?
And the Adam Smith point: Shawn is saying this "invisible hand" is exactly as brutal and unacceptable as the inhumane calculations of demand for labor performed by planners in the Soviet Union's Five-Year Plans.
The problem with reading text is that all that is conveyed by voice and body language is missing. Shawn's style of irony was lost on me upon first reading, so I did miss a few of his points, although I still think the essay too didactic and too ambitious in its scope, resulting in vast oversimplifications.
Please go here to download the film "Capitalism and Other Kids Stuff" via bit torrent. Go here:
http://onebigtorrent.org/torrents/7372/Capitalism-and-other-Kids-Stuff--Newer-Fancy-Version
..and start downloading. It is an mp4 file. I am seeding now.
....it hurts my heart to see the ignorance displayed: "it wasn't fun enough"..."how come i couldn't skim it!"..."how come the first part wasn't like the part i liked?"...."how come it didn't say something else?"
here...DUMB FRIENDS...try to listen....here is what he said: LIFE IS HELL...FOR EVERYONE...AND IF YOU 'GLIMPSE' IT, EVEN FOR A MOMENT, IT SHUTS YOUR BIG MOUTH UP!.....BUT OF COURSE ONLY FOR A MOMENT.....
Actually, I think my initial reactions to this essay were quite wrong. I thought he was making fun of those of us born into less favorable circumstances( I am over-sensitive to snobbery and being looked down upon as a rural, blue-collar person) so I learned something about my own illusions that had lead me to be obtuse. So I learned something about myself thanks to Wallace Shawn and webwalk. Bletspeg, how does hateful name-calling help anything?
Thanks John. It's a good thing to be sensitive to snobbery, and Wallace Shawn is definitely a writer who assumes a lot about what the readers will grasp. He's not exactly a snob, he tries hard to stay in touch with reality, but he's writing for (a certain class of somewhat decent) snobs. He can't help it, he's so over-educated.
The whole idea of imagining life from the perspective of an actor - for most of us, that's absurd, we're struggling day-to-day. But Shawn is a (relatively successful) playwright and an essayist, and he gets to think about such things if he wants to. To his credit he tries to use that privileged perspective to look at reality, instead of just floating off into his own ego.
Keep up the fight.
first to 2a, thank you for the jack london--brilliant!
to john. i wasn't trying to "help". i was describing you...friend....