Discussions
The End of Cynicism?
Posted by dougist • 11/06/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: blogging, Cynicism, discourse
Is this the end of cynicism?
Obama's soaring victory speech in Chicago Tuesday night was an oratorical flourish of positivism, such as has been missing in public discourses in America for years.
But what does this victory mean to the future tone of discourse in America? Is this the end of cynicism, the tone of voice which has become the best way to identify one as an American? Is it the end of snarky, the tone of most blog writing? Now that the revolution is over how will we speak, casually and formally, without the ability to mock, snark or deride the archetypes built since the 1960's?
Certainly the old rebellion is over, so what will replace its messenger, which has been the sound of sarcasm in our voice?
I posted my ideas at www.dougist.com.
What do you guys think?
(No this is not a political discussion - it's more about art and expression)
User Comments
-
[Is this the end of cynicism?]
Not while I'm still alive. (And I voted for Obama.
) -
It's funny you extend this in reference to blogging...
because the one thing I've heard most about my humor blog is the "pleasant surprise" that things can be funny without ranting/making fun of someone.
It has become a bit of a style, of course, the snark-filled rant. It's liberating to write, so it's not a wonder bloggers love it.
Will it be over? Probably not as long as we all still have day-to-day frustrations. Again, it's cheap therapy.
But will there be room for other types of expression too?
I hope so. I'd look forward to picking up the challenge.-
Ah, Jen,
You're stuff is great, but I think special, if not singular.
I've watched the uniformed but opinionated spread from Gawker to print media to the airwaves to the classroom to public discourse (or vis a versa, and back and forth each imitating the style of the other), but now like a lighting bolt it seems uniquely hollow. -
Thank you, that's very kind.
The style that you've seen spread I think is one that's been very helpful for a number of people to get "noticed" and get their 15 minutes. I mean, saying something outrageous is always bound to get attention, so this becomes a quick fix for folks to express themselves and gain a following.
Of course, you're quite right-- with a LOT of people doing the same, when do we reach saturation for a particular style, and what gives something new the jumpstart? -
See, I knew it was all Warhol's fault...
-
-
The world is and has been full of positivity if we care to open our eyes. Obama didn't do that it was a world where he was told you can do and be anyone. Cynicism will always exist regardless of who is in office or making history. For the record my blog which isn't snarky or mean or whatever was an idea in my head 12 years ago and Obama had nothing to do with it.-
Shiley: Granted,
But adding a touch of humility here, I'm not sure that any one of us is responsible for the general tone of dialogue that is very prevalent in discourse. Culture moves and reacts to major events and certainly we have just been through one. -
You are right about that. At the same token people don't change over night. I live in an area where there are very few African Americans and this recent election has brought out what I knew this state had to a real strong degree, hate. I am perfectly happy with the choice of president. There are areas of the world that aren't. As long as hate exists in a world that bleeds red there will always be cynacism.
-
-
Good Lord, I hope not. What would there be to do?-
I know... that's exactly the "thunderclap" that I think is rocking the halls of the "institutions of voice" right now.
-
-
with the likes of sean insannity, rush limberger and bill-o, it's open season again to serve up lavish spin and fabrications of the worst kind. fasten your seatbelts. it's gonna be a cynical ride. -
I think cynicism is overly and often improperly used as a synonym for pessimisism. I am a cynic in the sense that fits with the definition of a cynic as one who thinks that people are motivated by selfishness. This isn't a negative thing, just a realistic observation. Selfishness has an undeserved bad reputation. It is after all one of the motivations that contribute to our instinct for survival.-
Don't Objectivists take a non-cynical view of selfishness? The Randian ideal of selfishness as a virtue? (opps, can we still talk about Ayn anymore?)
-
Sure, but if you're going to quote her directly you have to clean up the comma usage so as not to cause anyone's brain to bleed. Rand does, indeed, preach the virtue of selfishness, but I wonder whether she would if she were writing today, given that it's taken on such a different face. It's hard to ignore the fact that the "selfish" heroes in Rand's works of fiction were committed to things like quality work and being true to their word.
-
Sorry I brought it up. It really is the subject for another discussion, and sorry about any comma induced hemorrhaging ... Get well soon...
:-) -
It makes me feel kind of cynical that getting a serious response made you sorry you brought it up.
-
I'm not actually sure that Rand's selfishness wasn't standard selfishness, given I recently read a book about Narcissistic Personality Disorder where she was given as an example of an uber-narcissist.
But that's sorta OT. -
I think that's probably true in terms of what she practiced, Jenn (and her "philosophy" was perhaps an elaborate justification for that), but the lead characters in Rand's fiction would never succeed today, and it's not because of the developments she projected--it's because they were honest and quality-conscious. That was probably an outgrowth of narcissism--a belief (and need for a belief) that their performance and abilities were superior--but maybe that makes narcissism superior to plain old selfishness. If only we could hope, for instance, that drug companies would strive to produce the best product on the market instead of just making the most money...
-
I admit, I'm not actually familiar with her writing, so I will certainly defer on that. I wouldn't consider Narcissism superior to plain old selfishness-- (it's likely =worse in terms of its overall effect on those near them) but it's just a LOT more complex, or perhaps "evolved".
-
-
I don't think it's the end of cynicism, but hopefully it's the beginning of the end of cynicism's all-pervading influence. -
I think that the Obama presidency will have its own tone.
As for the end of cynicism? Hardly. That's too much a part of human nature. And, far too much part of one flavor of sophistication to go away.
I was impressed with Obama's victory speech in Chicago. He's quite an orator.
BTW, I don't think that we'll see the end of wack anytime soon, either. I've noticed a persistent rumor that Obama wasn't really born in Hawaii - and I think it's growing into a conspiracy theory.
Oh, well: I insist on being hopeful. -
I am one of the biggest cynics in New York state
-
There may be a professorship in your future. Or maybe a 'thought-provoking commentary' column in a highbrow magazine.
-
-
Good question, Doug... and interesting coming from someone with a life in the city.
I checked your post and commented.
My feeling is that Obama was carried to victory by voters who did not experience Watergate and Vietnam -- only their after-effects. Maybe the young are capable of a hopeful idealism that those who came of age in the 60s and 70s are not?
In terms of my blogs, I have been able to avoid the snarkiness when talking about parenting and food. I like sharing the positive feelings and humor associated with those parts of my life.
In my writing about politics this election season, it was *extremely* difficult to be as evenhanded as I normally want to be. There was just too much going on that made me shocked and angry. In that part of my writing, you are correct. It will be easier to bury the upset and have a more positive focus. (I am finding that among my commenters as well.)
I am hopeful that there will be more focus on problem-solving than polemics in the months ahead. What a refreshingly positive change that would be for the country!-
Hey J,
I agree that the tone will be very utilitarian at first, but then, as I wrote, we will find that shallow and will begin to search for the new voice. I'm not sure what that voice is, but I listed a few ideas of what I believe it will not be - and I took a stab at what it might be.
(Thanks for you're note...!) -
Are you saying my utilitarianism is shallow??
(this is my new voice -- shocked!) -jk
Seriously, though, I agree with you that there will be some way-finding and perhaps even philosophical re-alignment. I'm just not sure how that will look yet.
focuses on task at hand -- pumpkin pie -
perhaps that new voice is being able to articulate an idea without being insulting and rude about it? perhaps it might be a new voice that is willing to see the points of views of others as having value instead of making an enemy of them? -
Good point. Maybe a return to grace is around the corner.
(and my shock was feigned, just to be clear.)
-
-
Are you suggesting that because P-E Obama is here, people will watch how they talk? And if that is what you mean, why would you think that?-
Not at all. My post doesn't suggest that. I believe that a positivist tide would be very genuine. The issue is about completion and it's results.
-
-
No. I think it will always be at times an important and integral part of the human dialogue.
-
obama gives a wonderful speech.
i voted for him, so don't take this the wrong way.
it's all well and good to give speeches, but if he starts bringing on the same old hack politicians for cabinet positions, it'll be very hard to take him, his speeches, or posts like this seriously.
jeez, he picked rahm emanuel for his chief of staff! emanuel supported the iraq war and is another of those annoying "the last thing we democrats want to do is actually espouse ourselves to any explicitly liberal positions" centrist jerks.
speeches are nice but the fact that they are so rarely followed up with actions that match are a big part of why there is so much cynicism in the world.-
Tone is important. It’s what most people hear. And interpretation is important since less then a few hundred thousand people will actually deal with policy on a first hand basis. For all the rest of us our views are filtered, and a lot of my post is about how that filtering is now altered. It is only partially (perhaps only slightly) about Obama's oratorical skills.
-
-
There is nothing quite like a little irony when communicating. Cynicism is a natural tendency.-
I guess I'm arguing that it HAS been a natural tendency, and that might be changing
-
-
I lived on Capital Hill when Reagan was elected. It was like a switch was thrown, almost immediately the entire tone of discussion changed, so I suggest this change could happen very fast.
-
Doug,
Obviously, I live in a different world and have far different experiences than you. (For instance, I was 8 when Reagan was elected and my life is quite far from DC or New York...) But, if I could offer something from *this* vantage point, it would be that there is a huge portion of the country that is far removed from the milieu in which academic discussions of the country's core rhetorical tone take place.
One of the things I noticed about Obama's way of speaking was its universality -- it appealed to both sides of the urban/rural divide. Perhaps that's because he is a generalist, or maybe it is because he was actively seeking themes that bridge the traditional fault lines of class, race, and gender. In the process, he briefly convinced enough of the rural populace to believe in his message -- just enough.
When I look at the country now, I see certain fault lines that still exist. The urban/rural split is one of the sharpest ones. So, while the people who used to be the opposition are considering certain issues "complete", cultural separations in society remain.
What this has to do with cynicism, I'm still working out. Maybe it means that it will remain, but that its source will change. As much as I don't like to admit it, there was an aspect of the "cultural populism" we heard in the rhetoric of the past several months that struck a chord with certain groups. It was anti-intellectual in nature, and I was honestly surprised at its strength. As I said yesterday, I'm not exactly sure how the chips will fall yet (and I don't mean to be a downer...) but not everyone is ready to board the happy train yet. There is a portion of the electorate who, politely as they can muster, is saying "That's okay. I'll walk." -
I don't think they are that removed. They watch TV, read the papers, go to movies, and in addition to reading your site and mine they read big brand web sites. People are consuming vast quantities of information these days, but it's kind of like the early days of froze foods, a lot of it is processed. (I know, I know Eric Schmidt thinks the web is cesspool, but Huffington still draws big readers every day...)
I really don't think the populous is filled with optimism. Some portion of 40 million plus McCain voters are probably disappointed. My argument was about the media and the academy. For them this is the affirmation of life long policy agendas, and now they really have no other choice but to change their tone. Since they determine the nature of public discourse, this softening of tone to optimism will be dominant for quite some time. I think the tone will be utilitarian at first and then I suspect it will move to something else, as I touched on at the end of the article.
In other words, I think the food processors are working on their 40 year old recipe right now (to really torture a metaphor)
That rural/urban rhetorical flourish goes deep in the Dem's. Even a New Yorker like Mario Cuomo had a church preacher like twang to his speeches at the DNC a few seasons back.
I got a kick out of Matthew Parris' column today in the Times(UK)OnLine the headline was:"Calm down! He's not President of the World"
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
