Is there a libertarian approach to culture?
John Humphreys has kindly asked me if I would join the ALS blog stable – I will be intermittently posting here and at www.chrisberg.org, when the mood strikes. Briefly, I’m a Research Fellow with the Institute of Public Affairs, Editor of the IPA Review, and probably the only self-described libertarian with a column in the Melbourne Age. My research area is usually regulatory policy, but I’m also interested in history, culture and technology.
A peculiarity of critiques of modern capitalism is that it is, at least in part, an aesthetic critique. McMansions do not just create environmental and socially problems, they are also ugly. Plasma screens and home theatre systems are crass. Advertising on the scale that plasters New York or Hong Kong is obnoxious – European cities are much more refined. (The Melbourne City Council, well known for its trendy environmentalism, also has a thing against billboards.)
By contrast, libertarians tend to reject aesthetics as even a valid criteria for political criticism. If someone wants to live in a McMansions or full their house up with expensive and ugly televisions, who are we to judge? And if you don’t like advertising, go have one of those ‘sea-changes’ that the weekend papers keep telling us is the new coolest thing. Spend enough time around other liberals or libertarians and this reaction becomes instinctive – it’s none of our business; some people like some things, others like other things, etc etc etc. We just don’t like passing judgment on other people’s choices, and this rightly places us in sharp contrast with our political opponents.
It is common to extend this attitude to cultural matters – quality is subjective and preference should be our only the guide. Some people like Mills and Boon, others like Thomas Hardy. At the level of libertarian philosophy, Home and Away is the equivalent of Fritz Lang’s M. The old cliché that ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’ has been revived as the libertarian approach to aesthetics.
But one cannot have an intellectual movement without an approach to culture. Culture dominates the public sphere. Libertarians have ghettoised themselves from the vast majority of debate by speaking almost exclusively on economics and political economy.
As I see it, the challenge for liberals and libertarians is not to ramp up production of opinion piece on politics or economics. We may not dominate, but every economic or political issue has a readily available libertarian perspective. By contrast, the cultural pages of the newspaper are almost uniformly free of liberal-minded individuals. There are no explicitly libertarian film-reviewers or music reviewers. Part of this is because the small size of the libertarian community in Australia, but a large part of this is because there is no clear libertarian perspective on culture. There is a libertarian view on who should produce culture and with what money – a traditional government vs. private sector debate – but there is no aesthetic approach.
And, to be frank, if the libertarian movement is going to expand in Australia, we are going to need to engage on cultural issues. People like reading about culture. Not many people like reading about thorny issues of libertarian economics.
In the absence of a libertarian aesthetic, some libertarians approach the issue of culture by adopting the well-established conservative aesthetic – the argument that classical art is often superior to modern art neatly dovetails with historical changes in government support. After all, the much maligned postmodernism seems to be most popular with tenured academics and only decipherable with reference to Foucault and Derrida. And it doesn’t help that postmodernism is, in the hands of many academics, reduced to little more than dumb attacks on capitalism prettied up with obscure prose and self-indulgent jargon. So in the view of this conservative approach to culture, capital-A Art virtually collapsed when Marcel Duchamp nailed a bicycle wheel onto a stool and Kazimir Malevich exhibited a stark black square.
The other approach libertarians take to culture is the diametrically opposite. ‘High’ culture is of just modest interest; low culture can have just as much meaning. High culture is, after all, the preserve of the less pretentious chardonnay socialists. In Australia, not many operas are performed without generous public subsidy, and these are the focus of the ABC’s arts programs. Popular culture, by contrast, has met the test of the marketplace and deserves our deep respect. (This blog, you might have noticed, has chosen its side – there is a category for “Pop Culture” but not “High Culture”.)
This libertarian approach to aesthetics has a peculiar affinity with the almost uniformly left-wing cultural studies clique – it often consists of trawling the marginalia of pop culture for quirky artefacts. After all, doing so is a deeply postmodern endeavour; reflecting a lack of interest in the notions of artistic skill or progression and seeking out material that is deliberately unpretentious or uninformed.
I think this approach is far more rewarding than the conservative aesthetic, and it quite nicely reflects libertarian optimism. But it is a bit of a dead-end. It’s one thing to declare that Cannibal Holocaust is a masterpiece of the cannibal exploitation genre, but it’s quite another to use that as a guide to quality. Can culture be entirely subjective? If it were, that would imply that Meet the Spartans is as valuable as Meet the Parents. And only the most dogmatic pop culturist would argue that marketplace success is the best criteria for assessing cultural value – Citizen Kane, the perennial critics’ choice for the best film ever made, would be no longer spoken of. Aesthetic judgments like beauty must still have a place. I would argue that a postmodern approach need not be an entirely relativist one.
Elizabeth Farrelly, in her bizarre ranting Blubberland: the Dangers of Happiness, inadvertently makes the case which ties neo-liberalism and postmodernism together when she bemoans the loss of ‘beauty’ in the arts. (My colleague Richard Allsop has a forthcoming review of Blubberland in the March edition of the IPA Review, if you’ll forgive the cross-promotion.) Farrelly is on to something. Postmodernism and liberal philosophy are strangely comfortable partners – Foucault recommended late in his life that his students read Hayek as a philosophical fellow traveler. If we were to develop a libertarian aesthetic, it would probably owe a lot to left-wing postmodernists.
Perhaps there need not be a liberal or libertarian approach to culture. But, as it stands, art criticism in Australia has been almost entirely ceded to cultural conservatives or the left – their political philosophies are more comfortable with making judgments about the value of certain activities. Libertarians, as long as the government isn’t doing it, don’t usually care. I am not arguing that we should try to awkwardly shoehorn political points into album reviews, but that we develop an approach which allows libertarian morality to inform cultural criticism. The vast corpus of film, literature and art critics that hold left-wing views regularly seep their political philosophy into their writing – we should try to do the same.
After all, culture is too important – too popular even – to be abandoned by our side of politics. If we are to involve ourselves in cultural criticism, we must start becoming more comfortable with making judgments about artistic and cultural worth.
79 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
-
Recent Comments
Catallaxy Files- Evaluating Rudd’s Fiscal Stimulus February 11, 2012I am just giving you a sneak preview of my piece in the Inquirer section of The Australian today. You will all have to run up to the newsagency or go on-line to read it. No doubt, it will make me popular with parts of the blogosphere! Gosh, at least Alesina’s paper was published in [...]Judith Sloan
- Should the RBA intervene to lower the Australian dollar? February 10, 2012I had this piece in The Australian during the week. I became interested in the topic during my visit to Switzerland. I conclude that the RBA will not, and probably should not, intervene but it is an interesting topic. The value of the Australian dollar is putting many of our trade-exposed industries under real pressure. [...]Judith Sloan
- Open Forum: February 11, 2012 February 10, 2012 Sinclair Davidson
- Evaluating Rudd’s Fiscal Stimulus February 11, 2012
- inCISe
- Oliver Hartwich:Greece’s austerity package February 11, 2012 Editor
- Amnesty on truth February 10, 2012I’m ashamed to admit I was a member of Amnesty International in high school. Back then I proudly wore an Amnesty badge on a black beret. Now I cringe at the memory of my naive self lapping up their hyperbole. The Sydney Morning Herald recently reported that Amnesty International is urging a parliamentary human rights watchdog to investigate the federal gover […]Sara Hudson
- More on PHI rebate means test February 10, 2012When I wrote in Incise yesterday, ‘Rebate should not be means tested,’ I did not expect events to move quite as quickly as they have. The government seems confident it has the numbers to get the means test through. I wouldn’t be surprised if Rob Oakshott and Andrew Wilkie have indeed swallowed the government’s nonsensical arguments, but it will be interestin […]Robert Carling
- IPA news
- Let European dogs lie February 9, 2012Australians will be surprised to learn that, apparently, the federal government now has responsibility to help the city of...
- It's time to bring back the thrift February 9, 2012Ted Baillieu plans to shave 3600 jobs from Victoria's bloated public service. The state of Wisconsin in the US, with a...
- We'll huff, we'll puff, we'll blow the budget into surplus February 8, 2012Bill Clinton famously said, "It's the economy, stupid". So it is. Unsuccessful politicians might be inclined to argue,...
- Let European dogs lie February 9, 2012
[...] I’ve been asked to contribute to the Australian Libertarian Society blog – I have a piece up there now about the need for a libertarian approach to culture and aesthetics. [...]
Pingback by Chris Berg » Is there a libertarian approach to culture? | February 9, 2008
Interesting.
I’m not sure if I agree that pop culture is a good representation of libertarianism. I can see the argument. But the people that buy into pop-culture often buy into government promises, too.
I think we should be cynical, individual, judge everything individually on its merits and be entirely inconsistent if it pleases us. And we should definitely be entirely inconsistent with each other.
High-culture of both modern and classical varieties are nice sometimes. So is pop-culture sometimes. I think inconsistency in attitudes to pleasure is wholly libertarian.
That and a rejection of prejudice including politically correctness. I’ve been watching a lot of foreign movies recently and in all honesty, some of them are shit. I’m not going to praise a shit foreign movie just to try and seem educated. Japanese TV, for example, is appallingly bad. Japanese Anime on the other hand is usually far more in-depth than Disney Cartoons even though both are aimed at children.
I like reality TV- I find the premise of Big Brother, Australian Idol and Survivor interesting. I hate Home and Away. I don’t like art much at all. My music tastes vary from mainstream pop to indy rock. I like food from all over the place- but mostly I love flavoursome stuff like Indian, Italian and Thai; I find traditional Chinese cooking quite bland. I hate most sport, but still like meat pies, pizza and junk food. Just not as much as a well cooked meal at a restaurant. Movies? I like things with a storyline and a meaning. The Academy Awards often get it right, but from time to time get it so wrong.
But I’m me. You might think something entirely different.
I am not arguing that we should try to awkwardly shoehorn political points into album reviews, but that we develop an approach which allows libertarian morality to inform cultural criticism. The vast corpus of film, literature and art critics that hold left-wing views regularly seep their political philosophy into their writing – we should try to do the same.
I presume that means inferring, wherever possible, that whatever the answer might be to a cultural question, the last place you would look for a solution is the government.
Thus, when discussing modification to the internal layout of the Sydney Opera House, speculate as to how the private sector will be induced to pay for it since it is obvious the government shouldn’t.
When discussing the Archibald Prize, emphasise the value of the paintings and how they could easily fund the event without government assistance.
When reviewing the latest performance of the Sydney Brandenburg Orchestra, praise its private sector fundraising skills.
A libertarian critique of art? I am probably missing the relevance.
But I must admit I find the New Hampshire free state project’s logo the best symbolism of libertarian ideals. If you have not seen it, it is a porcupine- representing an individualistic animal that is cute, friendly and non-aggressive but defend itself when provoked.
David,
I think thats on the right track, but when I refer to libertarian philosophy in criticism, it is more than just relationships with government. An example – and forgive me for going back far into history – would be Charles Dickens. A libertarian assessment of Dickens would take into account his relationship with his buying public – his relationship with the marketplace – as part of the criticism.
Paul Cantor, a US English professor, has done this well I think. A lecture of his on the topic is here [mp3].
I would argue that there are liberal and libertarian ideas that are more just about the proper relationship to the state – if there is a libertarian cultural criticism, it will be found there.
Winston, its not so much a criticism of art, but art criticism which I am referring to.
David, I think there is more to it than that.
Art is a reflection of society.
Philosophy, including libertarian philosophy, is a reflection on society.
I’m sure art can be appraised in accordance to its libertarian merits, too. It isn’t just about libertarian politics and how that affects art.
Was that your point, Chris?
Shem, I agree. I wouldn’t go around assessing the ‘correctness’ of cultural products – Citizen Kane will remain a great movie despite whatever politics might be buried within it – but as inheritors of the liberal tradition we should be looking to apply our holistic view of society to culture. To our argument that the markets and society are not mutually exclusive, we should add culture.
Chris
Cultural critics with libertarian views are just not going to get hired into the arts mainstream. There is a near uniform consensus in the arts that social democracy is the way forward. The arts have become very conservative, non-diverse in their opinions and Establishment in their outlook. Short of starting new review sites (blogs, magazines) I see little place for free-thinking libertarians in such a stifling, reactionary environment.
Also, as libertarians we should avoid falling into the knee-jerk trap of not judging. For instance, your typical unthinking libertarian would say that because far more people wish to read OK magazine than ‘War and Peace’ then who are we to suggest that the latter may be of higher quality. It is.
And language, unless you include that in culture.
Language not only is defined by markets, society and culture, but defines all three.
Control language and you control thought- men usually think in their native tongue and are thus constrained by it. Control thought and you control markets, society and culture.
Hmm…I suggest you google Steven Pinker and mentalese if you think men (sic) usually think in their native tongue.
Because far more people wish to read OK magazine than ‘War and Peace’ then who are we to suggest that the latter may be of higher quality. It is.
Quality is entirely subjective. Suggesting any kind of objective “quality” means you are valuing the preferences of one person (perhaps an educated critic) over another.
I guess as long as there is no enforcement of those preferences then it is entirely consistent.
I think my preference for atheism should be respected, but not enforced, either.
The only problem is that the majority ALSO have a preference for forcing their views on us. It makes me question their other preferences….
Shem
Quality is entirely subjective
Rubbish. Shakespeare is superior to OK magazine. Period.
I suggest you google Steven Pinker and mentalese if you think men (sic) usually think in their native tongue.
What he’s saying seems pretty elementary.. Language consists of “signs”- the words we say and the “meanings” of those words. Sociolinguistic information is important as much as the specifics of the words, but language is more than words themselves. Language refers to a rule set- infinitely large and often unique to the person that possesses it- that determines the meaning we are intending to give and have the co-participant receive.
We can think in images, processes, etc. It’s all intrapersonal communication, but by and large we use “self-talk” an internal “dialogue” with ourselves that uses words, intonation and grammar just as if we were having a real conversation.
Try and think “happy” without words appearing in your mind. Or “socialism”. If you can do either of those I’ll be convinced that our thoughts aren’t constrained by language.
Rubbish. Shakespeare is superior to OK magazine. Period.
You THINK that is the case. I’m sure that to a dog they are pretty much of a muchness. Actually a dog might prefer the shiny pages and colours of OK magazine more. As might a young child or a non-English speaker.
There’s nothing of objective value in Shakespeare. There is a common subjective consensus that Shakespeare is superior, but of itself it holds no value.
The Bible is a load of boring tripe to me. To others its the word of God. By believing in sky-fairies they have a different sense of value and they attribute a lot of value to the Bible. I judge it purely on its literary merits.
To value Shakespeare over OK magazine probably means you value literary merit over profit, too. Again a subjective distinction you have made in valuing it. I’m sure a publisher would make an entirely different evaluation.
If Jason Soon was here he would say something about Batman and comic strip heros.
Personally I think that one of the best recent movies for illustrating the libertarian ethos is Shrek (the first of the movies). It’s his swamp and he isn’t going to let anybody, even an official, tell him otherwise. And whilst Dulock is a beautiful picture book town much like a soviet fantasy with perfect symmetry and wonderful asthetics it is actually a place with an ugly heart. Even the character Fiona and the end of the story makes a mockery of shallow asthetics.
Another recent movie that I watched was Blood Diamond. The illegal diamond trade along side modern day slavery and civil war is the central theme. At the end of the movie my wife said to me that this movie illustrated all that was wrong with capitalism. I could understand the emotive basis of her reflexive reaction. I didn’t agree but I think her reaction stems from the fact that the left has for so long told us how to read movies.
In terms of childrens books I’d recommend “The King, The Mice and The Cheese” which teaches that sometimes the king should accomodating problems rather than listening to the grand schemes of his wise men. In the story the plans of the wise men all have consequences which require another remedy from the wise men. After many remedies the king ends up where he started and figures out for himself how to accomodate a kingdom full of mice.
p.s. The bit about the left having told us how to read movies is kind of trite. My real point was that many people don’t know how to interprete events from a libertarian perspective.
I can’t see this being useful, effective or meaningful.
You can’t have libertarian op-eds that stir the pot or shake things up, unless they run contrary to mainstream beliefs.
There are plenty of libertarian positions on social issues that are a bit out of the mainstream. But all of those positions are currently occupied by either the left (drugs, gays, abortion) or the right (guns).
The thing about libertarianism, is that it doesn’t employ highly emotional arguments. It doesn’t tell us we need to be so afraid of climate change, or terrorism, that government has to take some kind of active role. I mean, the libertarian attitude is “so what, its not my business?”.
You can’t really make a blockbuster movie that gets the celebrity status of Al Gore that says “Global warming. Its probably real, we should let the free market respond to it”
You can’t make horrific movies about violence and poverty in Africa that says “Things will gradually improve as liberty, democracy, commerce and property rights spread there”
But anybody who lobbies for bigger government can always hype up events, create huge themes, call people to a higher purpose, ask them to sacrifice their property and liberty, all in the name of “compassion”, or “security”.
What about blockbuster plots involving a fight against a pervasive, powerful and corrupt centralised power?
There is the rebel struggle against the galactic empire in Star Wars, the fight against the power hungry Sauron in Lord of the Rings, and humanity’s battle for freedom against the mind controlling machines of The Matrix.
The science fiction/fantasy genres is rife with David and Goliath battles between the brave protagonist seeking to bring down the overbearing intergalactic authority.
On a less nerdier side (which many libertarians could probably do without) are the satirical political movies that focus on the corruption and manipulation of politics. Wag the Dog comes to mind, or for a more extreme example, the Manchurian Candidate. In historical contexts, there is Braveheart and 300 (not that historical accuracy was a strong point here, but you get the idea).
Anything can be spun. ‘compassion’ and ‘security’ are nice little takeaways for audiences, but what about ‘freedom’?
Chris,
I look forward to seeing you post here. I thought your above essay was excellent. Really inspiring stuff.
There’s nothing of objective value in Shakespeare.
If that really reflects libertarian thinking, then it’s not exactly surprising that libertarians have made so little contribution to the Arts.
Chris – what are you advocating libertarians to actually do?
Shem is technically correct. But objective value is not what’s important when assessing art. It’s the degree to which it engages *human* minds that its important. Shakespeare has lasted centuries, and people devote their lives to it.
The same cannot be said of OK magazine.
Well yes Terje nicely observed.
The blogposts I’ve done on comics and movies on Catallaxy have sort of been my attempt at libertarian ‘cultural studies’. Comic books/graphic novels are in my view a very apt focus for libertarians in particular because they combine the fact that they are ultimately funded by the profit motive and need no subsidy and yet they do also have elements of artistry that anyone who isn’t imprisoned by snobbish preconceptions of what art should be (e.g. people dressed in period costumes screaming in some foreign language) would be able to appreciate if they gave it a chance. The same can be said of some very well written TV series.
BTW, the idea that all literature might be equally valuable is very much an idea from the Left, particular in the area of education. Conservatives (e.g. Kevin Donnelly, my old English teacher at CGS) hate it.
Welcome Chris.
I once saw an interview with famous cartoonists Bruce Petty, and I think it was Cook and Moir. They basically said their work was like shooting fish in a barrel: they wait until government stuffs up and then make a mockery of it.
The libertarian approach to culture really should be too easy. Even committed interventionists and socialists readily agree with a laugh when you point out what a dog’s breakfast the government is making of whatever it is trying to do (although they think a bit more tinkering is the solution). It’s much easier to engage people’s sympathy and understanding using comedy than with economics.
Perhaps libertarian polemics need to read how-to books on making people laugh, like The Comedy Bible by Judy Carter, to have a greater effect with the reading public. Brendan Shanahan is a columnist in the Daily Telegraph and he is always doing a light-hearted piss-take of anything that swims across his line of sight, often the foolery and presumptuousness of governments. There was a great satirical piece recently by someone else about an Ecotopia that idealist greens set up in central Australia. It had the green police coming to turn of people’s life-support systems to stop the consumption of electricity from harming ‘the planet’, and it really struck home.
You are right that it is vain to try to migrate cultural discourse into economics. It’s the other way around. What libertarians need to show the interventionists, preferably in a light-hearted way, is the lessons from economics in the unintended consequences of their perpetually failing schemes for social improvement.
I like the “Temple of Doom” approach – anything goes.
Robert Heinlein wrote many books with libertarian themes, and Starship Troopers was inspired by it. That’s art.
For social democrats failures in government are never (or rarely) seen as a reason for less government. They are invariably seen as a reason for better government or tighter control. When they laugh at government stupidity they don’t lament the excesses of government but rather they lament bad leadership and poor management. Of course the idea that better government would entail less stuff ups and fewer failures is near on impossible to refute. The fact that the Iraq war was mounted on the basis of poor intelligence and executed badly with insufficient troops and poor administrative decisions (ie sacking the Iraqi army) is easily dismissed as a case of bad government rather than excessive government or excessive government ambition. The queues and deaths created by socialised medicine can be routinely attributed to uncaring and indifferent politicians. The illusion is always that a different provider of leadership services can command and control with less error. And of course this is always true even if only in the abstract.
Given a problem in any organisation the potential leader who steps up and says “lets do nothing and just learn to live with this problem because all the solutions are worse” is almost never going to win support. Most leaders in such a situation have learned that the best answer is to offer a review process or to announce action but fail to execute it until the organisational focus shifts elsewhere and the issue can be buried. Usually this only works for incumbant leaders. Libertarians like all leaders don’t inspire except when they have an action plan. Once a libertarian leader has slashed taxes to the bone and privatised all government businesses and liberated us from authoritarian laws they will lose the next election because suddenly they will have become ultra conservatives with nothing in the way of initiative or action to offer for our ailments. Social democrats will always inspire because they always have a plan, even if it is a dud plan. As the saying suggests it is generally seen as more nobel to have tried and failed than to have never tried at all. I suspect that social democrats will always have more to offer the political dramatist even if it is mostly a story of vision, hope and tragedy. The arts tend to love social democrats not just for the handouts they offer but also for the script.
Terje, so is democracy even compatible with minarchy?
Of course it is.
The version of unchecked democracy you support isn’t compatible with dissent if the mob doesn’t like it.
LS,
We live in a social democracy and libertarians can via the democratic process tip things in the direction of liberty. However ultimately I think liberty once achieved can only be sustained via institutional structures such as constitutional reform or strong conventions and traditions that appeal to peoples conservative tendancies. Which is of course partly why libertarians are most vocal when existing traditions and institutions such as free speech or property rights are questioned by progressives. Instinctively libertarians are very wary of small holes in dam walls.
Regards,
Terje.
“Art” that has the purpose of a political message is called propaganda, it’s not art. I don’t think there’s such a thing as libertarian art. Just art done by libertarians.
Art is simply there to be enjoyed. However, inevitably the moral values of the artist come through the piece of work due to the fact that the artist chooses the content of his work from millions of possibilities. An artist’s underlying emotions will come through his work.
I think libertarians should simply get involved in making art if they feel that drive. Or if they see a piece of art they like they should promote it through reviews and friends. Art does effect culture and thus libertarians should promote art they like.
Libertarians could organise art competitions if they’re really keen, or simply put art reviews in their mags or internet blogs etc.
The review could judge the work on two levels. First, the technical aspects of the piece eg/ direction and script in a movie, and then you could discuss the philosophical themes of the piece.
It’s true that many art reviewers and academics love crappy post modern art. Many of them are socialists and many also have nihlistic streaks if you ask me. But this type of critically acclaimed crap is often ignored by the general public and is of little significance in my opinion.
eg/ Harry Potter is hugely popular, it’s a simple age old formula with the good guy figuring out how to beat the bad guys. – No post modernistic crap there and people love it.
Another eg/ There’s a horrible statue on North Terrace in Adelaide of a deformed tree looking thing. It’s all twisted and unhealthy looking and is lacking in any detail – The type of work that makes you wonder what kind of person would bother to think crap like this (it literally looks like a piece of crap) was important enough to sculpt?
But I guarantee you that most Adelaidians wouldn’t even know it was there.
PS. Shem – I think art can be objectively judged on how well it conveys the artist’s intentions.
I’ve never seen anything much “progressive” about questioning free speech. Indeed, it was “progressives” that fought for it in the first place. I don’t have a problem with laws against obvious intent to incite aggression or panic or whatever, but other than that, I can’t see any net benefit from restricting speech.
Mark, where have I ever proposed “unchecked” democracy?
I would like to see more direct democracy on specific issues related to publicly owned lands, but that’s about it.
I mostly hate political art, music, etc.
Generally, it is shit. I don’t mind if someone with a point of view different to me makes a movie they think is very good at telling a story or “keeping it real”. Even some protest stuff is tolerable because of the universiality of themes, paticularly the fear of dying or diplomacy as a choice to war.
I don’t know what the objectivists where smoking when they reckoned they could objectively enjoy art.
Chris and others,
When I’ve tried to understand how commentators, who describe themselves libertarians, view the world and especially Australia, usually the only measures I have of their views through what I read is centred on statistics, economics and data. I’ve found this uninspiring.
The ideals of liberty, upon which libertarianism is supposedly founded is, or at least ought to be, far, far more than that.
My life evolves around a range of attitudes, values, beliefs and practices that have evolved over many years, and reflect a drive towards liberty and independence. Economics is part of that, but it does not dominate my life (I’m pleased to say that after many years in banking).
Public commentary about culture is one thing, but actually exercising liberty is another. In Australia, we’ve got sucked into a dominant paradigm of doing everything in a lock-step fashion. We always seem to be waiting for someone else to do something new, before we do or try it ourselves. Maybe we can’t stand the thought of failing. In order to know liberty, it’s necessary to exercise it, and accept the responsibility, benefits and consequences of hopefully well informed, but independent decision making.
So, yes, there ought to be opinions and thoughts expressed on a range of elements of life and culture in Australia. To date, it seems to me that conservativism has dominated even libertarian ideals, making it dull and almost boring at times. So, in addition, we ought to be hearing about those people and things that are new, brave, different things in their lives that demonstrate they are free and exercising and giving expression to their liberties.
Liberty, aka freedom, is far more interesting, far more dynamic, far more exciting and far more open to change and individual initiatives than it is portrayed to be. Until commentators link liberty to what Australia’s founders were seeking, and to culture and the society around us, libertarianism doesn’t stand a chance of becoming well known, much less a necessary political force.
Indeed, libertarianism’s ties to conservativism and “right-wing” politics are what put a lot of people off it (including me). I’m unashamedly progressive/left-wing in most of my beliefs, and wouldn’t vote for the federal Liberal party as it stands now if someone held a gun to my head (I live in Menzies and had to put up with that shocking excuse for a politician Kevin Andrews). Australia badly needs a small-l liberal party. I don’t think the LDP is likely to become that party, from what I’ve seen here.
Indeed, as I’ve said before, I think it’s far more likely that the Greens will eventually let go of their obsession with government regulation to solve everything.
I don’t know that Australias founders were that inspired by liberty. Where is the evidence?
Mark, the objectivist idea is that a piece of art can be good but you personally can still dislike it.
The example used is the German director Fritz Lang.
Ayn Rand used him as the example of a great artist because he had a sign on his door saying “nothing in this film is accidental” -demonstrating his attention for detail and his attempt to integrate only the essential elements of characters and plot. However she personally did not love his art because she thought he had a “malevolent” sense of life.
So as I understand (and I’m not an expert objectivist, more a novice objectivist), objectivists attempt to judge art on two levels. Because the philosophy of the artist is irrelevant to how well he produces what he’s trying to produce (even though his personal philosophy will influence to some degree what he tries to produce in the first place). ie: You could have a story written very well about nothing, or you could have a story written very badly about some important universal theme.
But I was wondering what you mean when you say “I don’t know what they were smoking when they say they can objectively enjoy art?” I think you’re confusing judge and enjoy.
Objectivists acknowledge that you will have a strong automatic emotional reaction to art – does the art create your ideas of reality?
But at the same time they acknowledge that you can enjoy a work of art on some levels but not all levels- or in the case of movies and books, enjoy most of the plot but not all of the plot. eg/ You don’t write off a whole movie just because the ending’s a bit sappy. eg/ I recently got into a Canadian pop music artist called K-Os and I really like many of the songs, but hate the airy fairy and religious lyrics. Doesn’t mean he’s not a good producer and song writer.
Liberty had to be part of the inspiration behind Australia’s separation from Great Britain, spurred on by the events a couple of decades earlier of the Eureka Stockade, the independent natures and spirit of the people who pioneered non-indigenous settlement, and a Constitution (albeit one, unfortunately unlike the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution, that is more like a corporate Constitution, than one for and about people) that at least gives people the right to vote periodically, implementing democracy, but failing to mention Australia was intended to be one.
It would have been easier to remain under the skirts of the mother country, than to seek independence. But in becoming independent, founders overlooked the need to assure the people of their rights.
Winston , you can make plenty of blockbuster movies about tyrannical governments, empires, wars, socialist revolutions, as well as heroic rebellions and freedom fighters.
The point is, these blockbusters may entertain the masses, but the point is completely lost on them. People who saw Braveheart cheered to see the Scots stand up for themselves against English tyranny. Even when William Wallace’s dying word of “Freedom” is uttered, people don’t gain any libertarian insights from this, they just seem to get a sense of good guys and bad guys.
I went to see V for Vendetta with a big group of friends and after the movie, remained to quiet to see what they thought. A bunch of them thought it was a left-wing film because “lefties hate the government” ?!
And you watch Star Wars, all you understand is “Jedi good, Sith bad”. There are heaps of movies that show the horror of torture, of oppressive governments, of blood-filled socialist revolutions.
All of these movies tend to make impressions about war and injustice on your average viewer. They don’t leave your people with a feeling that big government is the problem. They leave people with a feeling that “wrong government” was the problem.
I haven’t seen V for Vendetta but WW was not a libertarian, the sad thing about most revolutions is that for all of the noble ideals expressed, they usually only serve to replace oppression with someone else’s oppression.
I kind of like Star Wars, as the good guys were the Trade Federation, the right sort of name but I felt they tended to be a bit too pacifist, they could have done with someone like Petraus or George Bush as President.
The problem with movies that show war in a bad light is that the lefties interpret war as an extension of the military industrial complex. They see businessmen and capitalists as being the corrupting influence on government without once considering that it is the institution of state that facilitate the worst folies of men. They fail to recognise that individuals will always be flawed, and that institutions must be designed in a way such that the damage done by avarice and greed can be minimised, the best way to do this is to keep the state small and its powers limited.
One problem for libertarians in analysing literature is that we don’t have a coherent pre-assumed story like Marxists, feminists , environmentalists and latte leftists do. It is easy to interpret a novel, a play, a movie ins terms of these preconceptions of how the world is and works, much more difficult to be critical from a libertarian stance without falling back on criticisms of state intervention and economic relationships. If economics is the dismal science, libertarianism is the dismal philosophy.
Welcome Chris…
Tyler Cowan has an interesting book called “In defence of commercial culture” which is a good read for people interested in seeing culture explored by a free-market economist.
And in the latest edition of Policy Magazine, Jason Potts writes about the economics of fashion.
LS — once again, this is the ALS, not the LDP.
I’ve never seen Citizen Kane and I likely never will. I have however seen “Star Wars: A New Hope” a few hundred times.
Not that Star Wars is a libertarian film, of course. The rebels were, after all, fighting a military dictatorship to restore a UN-style galactic constitutional Monarchy with Leia as Queen.
But I bet you it’s much less boring than Citizen Kane. Citizen Kane got not laz0rbeamspewpewpew.
As for the real Libertarian movies – the poster that said Shrek had a good one.
If that really reflects libertarian thinking, then it’s not exactly surprising that libertarians have made so little contribution to the Arts.
This is of course completely false. A great many artists from the last 18th and 19th centuries were libertarians, as libertarianism was the status quo in those times.
There are quite a lot of Libertarians still involved in the arts today Trey Parker and Matt Stone for example – they just don’t tend to go on the news and crap on about it like George Clooney does. There’s something about lefties that makes them want to broadcast their idealism to the lesser peoples down below.
For entertainment with a Libertarian bent, you can’t beat South Park. Penn & Teller’s Bullshit is of course libertarian, but a bit preachy.
I suppose Shrek-1 is compatible with libertarianism, but not what I would necessarily call a libertarian movie.
The Incredibles on the other hand was not only brilliant, but was choc-full of libertarian ideals – one of my favourite movies. If you haven’t seen it, make sure you do – as well as your kids (most kids shows are left leaning, and movies like Robots are anti-capitalist)
Serenity sees more space rebels… and though Joss Whedon may not have intended it as a promotion of libertarianism, I believe it comes across that way.
Firefly (the series on which Serenity was based) had some libertarian themes as well (individual vs the state) – but I think Serenity was much more so.
Serenity and Incredibles are two of the best, IMO…
…oh, and Team America: World Police (which is really just more anti-right, anti-left South Park style commentary) and perhaps People vs Larry Flint both have aspects of libertarianism as well.
Going back a bit, maybe even Inherit the Wind (1960).
V for Vendetta is what I would call left-libertarianism… still good though.
I was recently given the movie “Amazing Grace” on DVD (William Wilberforce / ending slave trade), but haven’t had a chance to watch it yet…
Fleeced, in what way did you consider Robots “anti-capitalist”? I’d agree it was anti-unethical-corporatist, but that makes it pro-capitalist in my book.
Then again I don’t have a strong recollection of the plot.
I’d just looked it up, and it confirmed my suspicion – it’s not anti-capitalist in any way that I would usefully define the term: the solution to the problem of the “big bad corporation” that decides to stop making spare parts for old robots is to set up a competing enterprise. Sounds healthily pro-capitalist to me!
LS, the message conveyed in this, and most hollywood shows is not the virtues of competition (from memory, it doesn’t even consider it), but that “capitalism is evil”.
Different people take different things from movies, I guess… but to me, Robots had a very anti-capitalist bent.
As an aside, there is a big difference between government-in-bed-with-corporates (bad) and free-market capitalistm (good)… To Hollywood, the latter doesn’t seem to exist, and all corporations are evil.
Strange, you must watch different Hollywood films to me.
They seem to revel in competition, usually of the physical and violent type!
Further, the theme of “big bad corporation turns good (loses the battle with the “good” corporation) seems to be reasonably common. I’d suggest most genuinely “anti-capitalist” lefties despise Hollywood for its embrace of commercialism.
BTW from http://www.zompist.com/rants06.html
“Right-wingers like to complain about the liberal bias in Hollywood. Well, I’m a liberal, and I certainly don’t see Hollywood pandering to me….”
goes on to list
“Government officials are almost always figures of ridicule, if not sinister manipulators. You’re not going to see a movie glorifying Social Security or even the Peace Corps”
That pretty much is my impression too.
“They seem to revel in competition, usually of the physical and violent type!”
*sigh* I’m sure you pull this shit deliberately…
Aside from the fact that competition in the context I used it was quite clearly free-market competition, and not the sort you’ve described here, you’re wrong anyway.
What you’ve described is not competition, but conflict. Conflict (and not competition) is the opposite of co-operation.
“Government officials are almost always figures of ridicule, if not sinister manipulators.”
And almost always in the pocket of big business… this is how Hollywood views capitalism – they see only corporate-cronyism vs collective for the common good. (Villians in Ayan Rand’s Atlas Shrugged were the same, but with the heroes being real free-market capitalists). Capitalism is rarely played in a positive light.
Well sure, but I’m not just talking outright fights and street-car chases. I’m thinking more of movies made about competitions for love, or for sport, or awards or whatever.
“Free-market competition” just isn’t good movie material, for the most part.
Anyway, the Hollywood industry itself is about as capitalist as you can get, making profits out of what consumers want. So if Hollywood movies are anti-capitalist, it’s because that’s what people want to see.
Surely corporate-cronyism is capitalism’s biggest enemy – isn’t it a good thing that Hollywood likes to make out how evil it is?
“Anyway, the Hollywood industry itself is about as capitalist as you can get, making profits out of what consumers want. So if Hollywood movies are anti-capitalist, it’s because that’s what people want to see.”
Similar to the marketing of Che Guevara t-shirts… always amuses me.
Yes, whilst I don’t agree with what they say, I certainly defend their rights to say it. So, the question is back to how to get a pro-capitalist, pro-libertarian message out there?
“Surely corporate-cronyism is capitalism’s biggest enemy – isn’t it a good thing that Hollywood likes to make out how evil it is?”
If they displayed it as an enemy of capitalism, sure… but they don’t – the message they give is that:
capitalism = corporate-cronyism
Interesting (if long) paper about the phenomenon: http://home.law.uiuc.edu/~ribstein/ribsteinmovies.pdf
It generally sides with your view, but offers some alternative explanations as to why Hollywood films appear anti-capitalist, e.g.
“Vilifying big business might just be a convenient way to present the popular battle between underdog and bully. In other words, business is not bad, just big.”
“Films must boil down issues to make them screen-worthy. It is much easier to get dramatic tension out of an individual’s confrontation with an institution than to examine society’s overall gain or loss. Since the case for the corporation depends on recognizing society’s gain from the production of wealth, firms films’ focus on the individual removes the good that corporations accomplish from the frame.”
Jerry Macguire was about free-market competition.
The Aviator was one of the few movies which actually portrayed an actual entrepreneur in a highly positive light (at least with respect to his activities as an entrepreneur).
http://www.mises.org/story/2609
Wall Street was about the efficiency of the market, under performing capital being reallocated to those who want it more. Greed is good.
The Princess Bride is libertarian, as is just about any pirate movie, individuals that simply want to exist outside the state, punishing the rent seeking Royal chartered privateers for their crony-capitalist ways.
Hollywood tend to do well on civil libertarian issues, but they completely confuse the issue on the nature of free enterprise and free markets. They may portray the corrupt politician in a negative light, but they show business leaders as positively evil.
I’m not an objectivist. I think objectivists forget Adam Smith’s assertion that businessmen don’t intentionally benefit others, they work towards their own self-interest, they are not heroic for doing this, they are merely human. Libertarianism needs no heroes, heroes set out to sacrifice themselves to benefit others, humans set out to benefit themselves and in doing so benefit others.
What’s an objectivist?
Derek S said:
‘It would have been easier to remain under the skirts of the mother country, than to seek independence. But in becoming independent, founders overlooked the need to assure the people of their rights.’
Australia did not become, and did not really intend to become, independent by the Constitution. It became a self-governing federation, rather than’independent’. The self-understanding was still very much as a part of Britain. The Constitution, which to us cannot be altered by Parliament, but only by referendum, is whollly contained within an ordinary statute of the British Parliament, which legally could change it by an ordinary act of legislation. The monarch of course retained her position and influence and the royal assent, reserve powers and royal prerogatives, though with time it become customary for these to be exercised only by viceroys. Appeals still went from the High Court to the Privy Council. It was actually Britain, in 1936, who was more forward in trying to get us out from under the skirts than we were in seeking independence. The only hankering for liberty behind the Constitution, was the dominant intention, which was to make Australia one free trade zone.
Justin,
It is someone who follows Ayn Rand’s Objectivism form of libertarianism. She ties to redfine the word heroic into meaning rationally pursuing your own self-interest:
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
Wall Street seems intended as a morality play against greed… though Gecko said, “greed is good”, you got the impression you were meant to think he was bad for thinking so.
Seeing it as a teenager however, I thought to myself, “hey – he’s right!”
I think you can start reading too much into movies… most are neither libertarian nor anti-libertarian.
Not sure I agree with your interpretation of objectivism. Like libertarianism, objectivism doesn’t need heroes of self-sacrifice. The “heroes” in Atlas Shrugged were heroes preceisely because of their self-interest, and their final reluctance to be willing victims.
That said, I’m not an objectivist either…
My comment at #67 was in response to Brendan #63… though after his follow-up at #66, I see I misunderstood his take on objectivism.
She ties to redfine the word heroic into meaning rationally pursuing your own self-interest:
You’re right in that Objectivists pursue their own self-interest, but I don’t think Rand was re-defining the term ‘heroic’. In the quote you used I think she meant it in it’s traditional sense of doing the ‘right’ thing when there are other forces acting upon you to do otherwise eg fear, greed, a desire not to acknowledge a painful truth, social pressure to conform etc.
I think where you might differ with Rand is the definition of ‘right’.
(But then I don’t think you’d be able to disprove her version of ‘right’ or offer a better one
)
Fleeced, then what exactly is she doing when says those words if not redefing heroism from self-sacrifice and risking taking for the benefit of others as it is commonly understood, to meaning what she said:
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
She is manipulating the meaning of heroism. You are not heroic for pursuing rational self-interest, which is what her “heroic” characters in Atlas Shrugged are doing when they withdraw from a socialist society, she is saying that they are acting heroically by not sacrificing themselves. An interesting take on heroism to a generation of people who considered serving the state in war as being heroic and giving your life in battle as the ultimate sacrifice.
When statists and socialists try to use doublespeak, it is called propaganda.
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, although I found much of the philosophy in them awkward. Libertarian authors seem to need exageration to put across the point of the benefits of libertarianism or costs of socialism, like the talking apes and whales in The Probability Broach. The point is that good literature doesn’t necessarily need any political philosophy, even if elements of the story reflect the politics of the times.
Brendan, what you’re saying comes back to the definition of ‘right’. If the state is not right then sacrificing yourself to the state is not right and you’re not a hero for doing it, regardless of how good your intentions might be. Most libertarians would agree with that I’d imagine.
It’s like the saying ‘there’s honour among thieves’. Sounds more like a contradiction to me!
……..or maybe an oxymoron!
LS, I think Hollywood panders to left wing ideology big time. It’s a bit shallow and predictable really.
Altruism is also a big theme in the movies – but that’s a common idea of both left and right.
eg/ I want to see this this new award winning movie “There will be blood”, but I’m worried that it will have a big anti-capitalist theme.
That Hollywood is shallow and predictable is hardly something I’m going to argue with.
That it “panders” to left-wing ideology? I don’t see it. It produces what audience want to see. Generally I find it has a strong individualist bent, and very often concentrates on the triumph of the individual over the collective forces of society, government or oppressive corporation.
I still think you are confusing anti-capitalist and anti-unethical-corporatist. True capitalists should as much against the latter as anybody.
Wall Street seems intended as a morality play against greed… though Gecko said, “greed is good”, you got the impression you were meant to think he was bad for thinking so.
Seeing it as a teenager however, I thought to myself, “hey – he’s right!
Absolutely, and you weren’t the only one. The thing is with Wall Street is you have to remember who made it. Oliver Stone is one of the most rabid lefties alive on the planet and he thought he was writing the most damnable speech imaginable, because as far as he is concerned, Gecko was evil by default because of his occupation.
The problem is that Stone unintentionally wrote one of the best defences of capitalism ever seen in a motion picture, but thought he was making a point in the opposite direction.
Will be interesting to see what such a “rabid leftie” makes out of The Fountainhead.
I don’t think that movie is going ahead.
Ayn Rand wrote the screenplay for the original Fountainhead, I don’t know if they’d change it or not.
fleeced – yes, the Incredibles is the best anti-statist film going. but its also one that appeals to the objectivists. mr. incredible is someone Rand would have been very proud of.
Brendan – Rand may not have been consistent in her philosophy but she is far more appealing than that of Adam Smith’s invisible hand. people want heroes like hank reardon not automatons working for their own selfish cause.
Hi again Chris. Interesting piece if for no better reason than someone else has heard of Cannibal Holocaust.
One of the things that interests me is this concern with libertarian aesthetics. There’s a reference to Shrek being a libertarian film above because Shrek can be read as a liberteraian character. It’s not that you can’t read certain stories as emblemic of libertarian values, you of course can. Million Dollar Baby over which I had my first stoush at Larvatus Prodeo (with a particularly stupid left wing ‘critic’) I’d argue can be thought of as that. Given the director it’s hardly surprising.
However the idea itself of libertraian aesthetics tends to denote a proscribed political aesthetic that is the artistic wing of an ideology. This is contrary to what the ideology stands for. Monotheistic and proscriptive ideologies like Nazism and Communism will obviously seek a compatable aesthetic. These are almost always a kind of kitsch neo-classicalism. The early Soviet Union saw innovations in various arts: Tatlin, Kandinsky, Esienstein. But Stalin repressed these and replaced them with Socialist Realism which bears many a resemblance to the art, architecture and cinema of Nazi Germany. The avant-garde was despised by authoritarians, Nazi, Soviet and Western as examples of Jewish, bourgeois and communist decadence respectively.
The difference being that in the West they hadn’t the power to shut down the experiments entirely and they flourished.
So any libertarian approach to art must be pluralist and avoid the pitfalls of ideological proscription and classification. Yobbo’s description of Oliver Stone as a ‘rabid lefty’ is a case in point. The best description of Stone I ever read was that of a right-wing anarchist in The Face magazine during the late 80s. He might be criticial of American foreign policy but his films are hardly the stuff of genuinely left-wing filmmakers like Kazan or Godard. And isn’t the challenge for a libertarian critic to understand why Godard is a good director whilst simultaneously disagreeing with his politics?
Perhaps what is needed is a regular spot of arts criticism by persons who are niether Boltaburbian reactionaries nor postmodern luvvies but consider the issues of the culture (like the pop culture/high culture dichotomy) from a different perspective. One that is neither anti-Enlightenment nor broadly repulsed at everything contemporary.
PS Yobbo – How do you know Citizen Kane is boring if you haven’t seen it? It’s anti-capitalist in the same way as King Lear is anti-monarchy.
Terje – I second Jason’s endorsements of comics. They’re some of the best stuff coming out of the culture. No hyperboly.
V For Vendetta is based on the graphic novel by Alan Moore. Mr Moore is a cantankerous anarchist and worships an ancient Roman snake god. He’s also one of the best writers of the form: From Hell and Watchmen being his best moments. Apparently Hollywood is in the process of destroying Watchmen as we speak.