I haven't been familiar with the breathtakingly bold, dark and daring writing of Spengler for very long. I expect that many of his pessimistic pieces seem extremely offensive to large numbers of people, particularly those who usually operate more in the realm of emotion than reason.
There has been much speculation about who Spengler is. I thought he was an Australian professor of anthropology or some similar field. Wrong. Here, at last, Spengler reveals how he chose his pseudonym and why. He has a broad base of experience and education. He gives us a little background on his journey from the world of leftist politics to conservative politics. He briefs us on his education in music, German, economics, philosophy and mathematics and his work in high finance. He discusses why he became unhappy with his life on Wall Street.
Over the years he decided that, "Renewal could not come from music, nor literature, nor the social sciences. The wells of culture had run dry, because they derived from faith to begin with. I was raised in the Enlightenment pseudo-religion of art and beauty. Initially I looked at faith instrumentally, as a means of regenerating the high culture of the West. Art doesn't exist for art's sake."
He started to take faith more seriously, returning to his Jewish roots. He became an admirer of the man who is currently the Pope:
"In 1996, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger had said in an interview published as Das Salz der Erde, 'Perhaps we have to abandon the idea of the popular Church. Possibly, we stand before a new epoch of Church history with quite different conditions, in which Christianity will stand under the sign of the mustard seed, in small and apparently insignificant groups, which nonetheless oppose evil intensively and bring the Good into the world." The best mind in the Catholic Church squarely considered the possibility that Christianity itself might shrink into seeming insignificance.One reason Spengler decided to deliver his messages to the world under a pseudonym was to prevent prejudices against Jews from coloring people's thinking about what he wrote. He calls himself "an equal-opportunity offender, with no natural constituency". I have particularly noticed that, like some other ex-leftists, he can be very cutting when he writes about those on the left. And sometimes his conclusions seem speculative. But he has some unusual insights into large cultural trends and the effects those trends have on real people. Many of his surprising, meaty pieces are fascinating to me. Even when they are disturbing.
Fame in the West, Art in the East
In his latest piece, Spengler bucks the popular reaction to the instantly-famous performance of Susan Boyle. He writes more about what her sudden stardom reveals about Western culture than about her. He maintains that there are a great many people who sing better than Boyle, particularly East Asians who are intensively schooled in music. One observation about Western popular culture:
" There is an undercurrent of self-worship in the aptly-named American Idol and its British knockoff, which lifted Boyle to stardom. As I wrote some years ago . . . , 'at some time during the 20th century, the people of the West elected to identify with what is like them, rather than emulate what is above them.'Spengler is worried about the contrast in industriousness and focus on excellence between the East and the West at this time in history.
Churlish resentment of high culture comes from the slacker's desire for reward with neither merit nor effort: the sort of artistic skill that requires years of discipline and sacrifice is a reproach to the indolence of the popular audience of the West. Better voices than Boyle's can be found in a thousand choirs and amateur theatricals, but the crowd has embraced this late-hatching Scottish songbird as a symbol of its own aspirations.
With no prejudice to Boyle, who seems amused rather than beguiled by her success, the fantasy-life of nations has consequences in the real world. . . . "
He also reminds us that high culture is not without its problems. In particular, it can be infected by pride. Susan Boyle's talent and performance may not reach the lofty heights of the best that Western Civilization has to offer. But I still find her success gratifying because her performance was so unexpected by the audience. And as Keira's mother used to say, "The woods would be a silent place if only the bird with the most beautiful voice were allowed to sing."
I don't think that people are reacting just to the fulfillment of Susan Boyle's dream - her fulfillment of her mother's last wish. I am most interested in the difference in the expressions on the faces of the judges and audience before and after they heard Susan Boyle sing. Most seemed shocked that someone who did not fit into the "fame" model of youth and beauty (or at least a striking appearance) could have a lovely voice. Why is that?
Do we now automatically assume that the young, beautiful and/or famous are the natural repositories of other positive characteristics? Is this because we want to be like the young, beautiful and famous? Do we sometimes attack the young, beautiful or famous when they don't fulfill our expectations?
Do we automatically overlook the positive characteristics of those who are not young, beautiful or famous? Do we expect ordinary people to remain invisible? Under what circumstances could someone who looks like Abraham Lincoln be elected today? Do we react positively to ordinary people only when we can identify emotionally with them, as many of us may have identified with Susan Boyle as she surprised her audience?
I've never watched American Idol, though I've seen a few YouTube cuts. But it is impossible to be oblivious to this program. I get the impression that the most popular contestants are competing predominantly in the world of Rock-n-Roll where image is a big part of success or failure. Fan bases are sometimes huge.
Not everything about idolizing rock stars is bad. But maybe Spengler has a point about our relative lack of attention to more exacting artistry. Maybe all those Asians studying classical music know something we don't. Maybe the vigor of contemporary Asian cultures is overtaking Western culture. Maybe this even has something to do with Asian industry over-taking Western industry.
Some echoes of past culture remain even in Great Britain, where the civic culture seems to be rapidly falling apart in many ways. The British version of "American Idol", whose title focuses on talent more than idolization, has apparently had several endearing, rather ordinary-looking aspirants to art outside the image-dependent genre of rock-n-roll. Three cuts, in addition to Susan Boyle's famous performance, are found here. I like this. The Anchoress has some more positive thoughts than Spengler's about Susan Boyle here and here and here.
Incidentally, we now know that "Spengler" is channeled by David P. Goldman. He has now lost the intellectual luxury of placing his ideas before the world without a personal image to which people could attach their feelings. He has also been chosen as an associate editor of First Things. I'll bet The Anchoress reads First Things.
Update April 27: Heh. Things move fast in the New Media. Last week "First Things", a Catholic publication, picked a Jewish editor. This week, my flip comment about The Anchoress following "First Things" looks really stupid. Her blog has been moved to the First Things site. I'll have to fix the links I made to her site above when they get the her page put back together. Her quote of the day: "Ideas create idols; only wonder leads to knowing". St. Gregory of Nyssa. Haven't thought that one through yet.
Over in Great Britain, is Susan Boyle now old news, with the discovery of this young rocker? Then with the discovery of someone even younger and cuter? Are the show's producers playing with our emotions?
