Thanks to my insistence that I will always listen to both sides of an argument, YouTube frequently suggests that I'd be interested in conversations about 'anti-feminism', reptilian overlords and Trump apologists. I hear a great deal of language which I don't approve - calling a woman a bitch because she advocates the existence of patriarchy is not just offensive, it's self-defeating - but I have been persuaded of opinions that go against my broad beliefs. For example, I now think that 'the wage gap' is frequently misunderstood by feminist vloggers, and the patriarchy needs a more precise definition before it can be a useful analysis of society. On the other hand, I recognise systemic and consistent prejudice against a wide range of marginalised groups, and the importance of addressing inequality of opportunity and how language reinforces both existing hierarchy and stereotyping.
There is an argument, however, coming from both left and right, feminist and meninist, liberal and conservative, that I'm not buying. In the aftermath of Brexit and Trump's victory, the blame for the disconnection between leftism and 'the working classes' is being blamed on the growth of 'politically correct' language.
I put both 'working class' and 'politically correct' in scare quotations because I believe both terms require deeper analysis.
A rich tradition of anti-political correctness exists on YouTube and in the skirmishes between the right wing media - which defines itself as alternative media and draws on the Rules for Radicals, both as an inspiration and a template to address the strategies of the left - and the left (regarded as the mainstream media by the right, but also featuring people like Noam Chomsky). However, the latest manifestation of this debate frames the failure of the left within its acceptance of minority concerns about the use of language.
The issue of 'no-platforming' and 'language policing' are identified as decisive in the rejection of left wing politics by a majority of voters.
I don't believe that this is true.
Above all, the statistics for voter turnout in the past year suggest that many voters are rejecting the rhetoric of both left and right wing democratic parties. Of course, everyone adopts the statistics that prove their point - the stark defeats of left wing candidates prove to the right that they are winning, the popular vote for Clinton proves that her ideas have a wide traction. However, large numbers refusing to vote - and not being bothered is a choice too - hints that elections themselves are becoming irrelevant.
Whether this is a function of the organisation of elections - a choice between two options is not really encouraging democracy and diversity - or a sickening indictment of the electorate depends on perspective. However, the polarisation that such elections provoke is a sharp contrast to the compromise, conversation and collaboration of democratic dialogue easily encouraged through proportional representation or a system that offers a variety of options.
Leaving aside those who have not voted.
Thursday, 12 January 2017
I Read a Book About The Enlightenment...
It's the period of history that everyone's talking about! It's either the moment when humans stopped acting like kids, or the reduction of all reality to a series of commodities... depends on who you ask, really. But here are five things about the Enlightenment that I pulled out of my critical rucksack.
It's the age of reason
This is the classic claim for the eighteenth century, and the one that sticks. Generally, this has been seen as a good thing: Enlightenment thinkers aren't interested in faith or authority, they like to think about stuff. However, this isn't as simple as it seems. The ambition to apply reason to ideas means that there was plenty of argument, and a fundamental belief - that reason is the best thing ever - doesn't receive that much critique. 'Reasonable' can end up being like 'Christian', a word that isn't always used to mean the same thing.
They liked a bit of science
In the previous century, the scientific method had caused a revolution in the way that the Universe was being investigated. This encouraged the Enlightenment to apply a more scientific approach to sociology, frequently invoking science to justify their descriptions of human behaviour.
They invented branding
Although the French philosophes did hang out together, Enlightenment was a buzzword, and writers would slip it into conversation to prove that they were in the gang. This did mean it was easy enough for its enemies to point out their opposition, but it also meant that the wider movement got more hits than individual thinkers.
It was cosmopolitan
Being a cross-European business, there was less of the nationalism and more of the hands across borders - they were even pretty positive about African and especially Chinese culture. This respect for different societies - despite the odd racist freak-out - made the Enlightenment one of the first movements to have an inclusive philosophy (although Christianity, The Roman Empire and Islam might all dispute this, since they had Universal aims too).
It was about growing up
Kant said that it was about casting off the oppression of authority, of maturing. The rejection of tradition and religion was an attempt to make humans act like adults, and not cower in fear at a set of rules made up by a father-figure (like God or the King, or Aristotle)
It's the age of reason
This is the classic claim for the eighteenth century, and the one that sticks. Generally, this has been seen as a good thing: Enlightenment thinkers aren't interested in faith or authority, they like to think about stuff. However, this isn't as simple as it seems. The ambition to apply reason to ideas means that there was plenty of argument, and a fundamental belief - that reason is the best thing ever - doesn't receive that much critique. 'Reasonable' can end up being like 'Christian', a word that isn't always used to mean the same thing.
They liked a bit of science
In the previous century, the scientific method had caused a revolution in the way that the Universe was being investigated. This encouraged the Enlightenment to apply a more scientific approach to sociology, frequently invoking science to justify their descriptions of human behaviour.
They invented branding
Although the French philosophes did hang out together, Enlightenment was a buzzword, and writers would slip it into conversation to prove that they were in the gang. This did mean it was easy enough for its enemies to point out their opposition, but it also meant that the wider movement got more hits than individual thinkers.
It was cosmopolitan
Being a cross-European business, there was less of the nationalism and more of the hands across borders - they were even pretty positive about African and especially Chinese culture. This respect for different societies - despite the odd racist freak-out - made the Enlightenment one of the first movements to have an inclusive philosophy (although Christianity, The Roman Empire and Islam might all dispute this, since they had Universal aims too).
It was about growing up
Kant said that it was about casting off the oppression of authority, of maturing. The rejection of tradition and religion was an attempt to make humans act like adults, and not cower in fear at a set of rules made up by a father-figure (like God or the King, or Aristotle)
The Age of Reason
So... this is difficult. My research into dramaturgy has led me to the
eighteenth century, the 'Age of Enlightenment'. I am reading Diderot, Rosseau and a 1960s' Time/Life book that has lots of pictures of men in wigs. It might be a coincidence, but the legacy of that era seems to be turning up in the debates on YouTube.
I call them debates, but that's generous.
To reduce it down to a caricature, one group are progressive liberals, who support a variety of interest groups (including feminists, anti-racists and LGBTQI activists). Their opposition is a broad spectrum of conservatives and right-wing video-bloggers, who reject what they see as a 'social justice crusade'. In this conflict, there are arguments about the shape society ought to take, and the notion of 'Western Civilisation' is a hot topic.
They accuse each other of racism quite a bit.
Esoteric as it might seem (or, an attempt to claim that my research is relevant to everything, ever), the legacy of the Enlightenment
looms large in the discussion. Some conservatives even refer to themselves as 'classic liberals', harking back to Adam Smith. A recent article in The Telegraph claims that students at The School of African and Oriental Studies wanted to kick Kant off the curriculum. My own fatuous introduction to The Dialectic of Enlightenment addresses a text that might lurk behind much of the progressive agenda, since it attacks philosophy's bias towards oppression.
Interestingly, both sides of the discussion feature many atheists. It's almost as if this is a debate about how a post-religious society might move towards building a society based not on divine law but rational thought. If they'd all stop shouting, mind.
Much of my reading into the eighteenth century offers a similar scenario: following on from the success of the scientific method, many philosophers wanted to shift the state from its alliance with religion - a task most urgent in France, where the Vatican was in cahoots with the monarchy - and encourage, to paraphrase Kant, the species to grow up and stop using God as a father-figure.
The Enlightenment vision was not as simply rational as its
supporters might suggest: while it did place reason at the centre of its discourse, it manifested in different ways across Europe. Although some thinkers, like Voltaire or Diderot, advocated anti-clerical or atheistic positions, others, like my hero Lessing, maintained an interest in applying reason not to destroy theology but adapting religious belief. However, the shared concerned with the importance of reason over blind faith and tradition, as well as a politically motivated application of reason could be interpreted as marking a decisive change in the focus and function of philosophy.
Both sides in the YouTube/Social Media war appear to be following certain Enlightenment principles: the conservative bloc aims to establish Western Civilisation as the product of reason and science, while the progressives are advancing the critique of society that evolved in the run-up to the French revolutions. The former emphasise the conclusions of the philosophers, the latter, the spirit.
I call them debates, but that's generous.
To reduce it down to a caricature, one group are progressive liberals, who support a variety of interest groups (including feminists, anti-racists and LGBTQI activists). Their opposition is a broad spectrum of conservatives and right-wing video-bloggers, who reject what they see as a 'social justice crusade'. In this conflict, there are arguments about the shape society ought to take, and the notion of 'Western Civilisation' is a hot topic.
They accuse each other of racism quite a bit.
Esoteric as it might seem (or, an attempt to claim that my research is relevant to everything, ever), the legacy of the Enlightenment
Interestingly, both sides of the discussion feature many atheists. It's almost as if this is a debate about how a post-religious society might move towards building a society based not on divine law but rational thought. If they'd all stop shouting, mind.
Much of my reading into the eighteenth century offers a similar scenario: following on from the success of the scientific method, many philosophers wanted to shift the state from its alliance with religion - a task most urgent in France, where the Vatican was in cahoots with the monarchy - and encourage, to paraphrase Kant, the species to grow up and stop using God as a father-figure.
The Enlightenment vision was not as simply rational as its
Both sides in the YouTube/Social Media war appear to be following certain Enlightenment principles: the conservative bloc aims to establish Western Civilisation as the product of reason and science, while the progressives are advancing the critique of society that evolved in the run-up to the French revolutions. The former emphasise the conclusions of the philosophers, the latter, the spirit.
Wednesday, 11 January 2017
Eat the Dramaturgy: Jonny and the Baptists on tour
JONNY & THE BAPTISTS: EAT THE POOR
50-date UK tour for the hit musical comedy about inequality, friendship & revolution
5 MARCH – 27 MAY 2017
Three quarters of MPs are millionaires. A third of the country lives below the poverty line. Whatever your politics, Jonny & the Baptists think it's worth talking about.
A riotous and heartfelt musical comedy for our times, JONNY & THE BAPTISTS' Edinburgh Fringe hit EAT THE POOR will tour the UK in March-April-May 2017. With over 50 dates, their biggest ever schedule reflects growing national audiences from acclaimed shows and appearances on Radio 4’s The Now Show and BBC Live at Television Centre.
Created through extensive research travelling across the country in early 2016, the show combines contemporary satire and inventive musical silliness with an epic personal story. Setting out to explore the gap between rich and poor, Jonny & the Baptists’ lives turn upside down when Jonny betrays Paddy for financial gain. As Jonny enjoys the high life with Andrew Lloyd Webber and Jerry Hall, Paddy falls into homelessness and despair.
An toe-tapping comedy about inequality, homelessness and revolution in modern Britain, EAT THE POOR sees the multi-award-nominees continue to grow in scope and ambition - and even dabble in a small amount of actual economics. Continuing the company’s commitment to reach broad, diverse audiences, their biggest ever tour schedule takes in leading theatres, arts centres, rural venues, comedy clubs and festivals across the country. (Full dates below.)
Nominated for five major awards (they’ve never won any), Jonny & the Baptists – real names Jonny Donahoe & Paddy Gervers – have rapidly become one of the UK's hottest live musical comedy acts. Winning rave national reviews for 2016 climate change comedy The End Is Nigh, they have also enjoyed regular broadcast work, major festival appearances, and once topped the iTunes Comedy Chart with single ‘Farage’. Alongside, Jonny has been nominated for a New York Drama Desk Award for his hit one-man show Every Brilliant Thing on international tour, now an HBO special (broadcast over Christmas 2016).
Thank you for taking the time to chat - it's much appreciated. I am a bit worried about asking questions on comedy, since I have no sense of humour and reduce everything to questions of structure...
Bearing that in mind - I've never been sure how you approach 'musical comedy'. There's two of you, so is this more like a gig, or one of those big productions they have in London?
Ha. Sometimes a bit of both. Our early shows were very much 'gigs': funny songs with a setlist, and often a theme but performed straight to the audience. We still love doing shows with a band from time to time (not least because it allows us to feel briefly like rock stars). Recently though we've made tentative steps towards something more like 'theatre'. Not like a west end musical - we can't afford the production values for one thing - but exploring ideas more through story and drama. We don't necessarily prefer one or the other, but they're different ways to get into the ideas we want to explore. The new show, Eat The Poor, is based around research into inequality but as we go, a personal story from our lives takes over and carries the ideas forward.
The inspiration for the show is pretty clear, but I am wonder how effective you find the stage as a medium for exploring ideas: do you find that the process of writing songs brings out your thoughts on a topic, for example, or do you have a clear idea of what you'll be saying from the start?
Generally we start with a very broad idea. It's usually whatever we're talking about in the pub, or something we want to know more about. The last show was about climate change, this one is about inequality and came from all the news stories in 2016 about homelessness and food banks, and the role of economic inequality in the EU referendum. It has to be something we want to know more about, because then we go on a period of research.
For Eat The Poor we spent several months travelling round the country working with homeless charities, local councillors and researchers, and talking to people from big cities to rural villages about how they experience poverty and inequality. From that you start to have an idea of what you want to say, so we go into a room with a massive pinboard and post every idea onto it with a different colour for themes, narrative elements, song ideas, jokes - everything we're thinking about.
From that you start to pare back, and see which ideas go together, and hopefully start to see the show coming together.
What about audiences - do they tend to agree with the political stance, or is there much argument around the show?
In 2014 we toured a show called Stop Ukip during the European Elections (and it's pretty clear we sorted that right out - you're welcome guys). At one show someone sat down, put up a Ukip poster by his seat and sat quietly throughout. Afterwards we had a chat with him. It was very polite. He explained that he thought we had a right to say what we wanted, and he had a right to present his own views however he wanted.
There's something valuable in those moments, when you can communicate openly with people who are far apart politically - but of course that's not the norm. Most people who come are probably broadly on the same political spectrum as us, but hopefully the shows also push ideas further and get people to think more, or in a different way, about their own role in the systems around them.
Is there a danger that political performance can end up as 'preaching to the choir', and becomes a nice place for people to nod their heads and agree with you, then do nothing about the problems? Is there any way around this?
We've been accused of 'preaching to the choir' on separate occasions by the Guardian and the Telegraph - which is quite sweet really, if you think about it. Our friend Grace Petrie, who's a wonderful protest-folk singer, has a brilliant response to the 'preaching to the choir' criticism: 'oh yeah, who are these other artists doing shows just for audiences who hate their work?'
Of course, people who come to the shows usually like us and what we stand for. Most audiences for The End Is Nigh came agreeing that climate change is a massive problem: but do our everyday actions reflect that? In Eat The Poor we try to turn the problem back on ourselves as well, and by implication our audience.
We know a lot of well-meaning Corbynite socialists who are very good people, but bought flats in London supported by money from their parents, and send their own kids to private school. (We've had pretty privileged lives ourselves - you can tell that because we're answering a Q&A about dramaturgy!)
If you agree with us that inequality is a major social problem, you also have to ask where your own life sits in that structure.
Basically - you can still challenge people who agree with you, just as you can challenge yourself and your own behaviour.
Flying off in another direction: what musical influences are at play in your work?
That's a hard one, there's so many. Bob Dylan, Billy Bragg, Bjork, Jacques Brel, Usher, Rihanna, Nick Cave, The Divine Comedy, Grace Petrie, Marin Harley, the list goes on. Often the influences come from the song we're trying to write: is this more a protest song, a classic rock song, a blues number? The comedy and the theatre should mostly lead the song, so the music needs the right tone to make it funny or dramatic. Then sometimes there's just a tune you've had on the brain for years and eventually the right idea comes along.
Is your approach to making performance political in itself - does the format express any political ideas, for example, or the use of music as a medium for satire?
There's a long tradition of both political and protest songs in folk traditions; and of satire as a medium for attacking the establishment - so in that sense, yes. At heart also, we're entertainers. Music and comedy help our shows be fun, funny, warm and accessible while still tackling important issues. We always want to write inclusively, to have a show anyone can enjoy no matter their background or political interest.
That's what stops it being a lecture or feeling elitist. Getting an audience to sing along to a catchy chorus is a great way to break down barriers and build a sense of community in just three minutes. We want anyone to be able to come and have a brilliant time: partly because that's a good way to get the ideas out as broadly as possible, but mostly because it's more fun that way.
FULL TOUR SCHEDULE:
5 MAR - BRISTOL - Tobacco Factory Theatres | tobaccofactorytheatres.com
7-11 MAR - EXETER - Bike Shed Theatre | bikeshedtheatre.co.uk
12 MAR - RICHMOND - Orange Tree Theatre | orangetreetheatre.co.uk
16-18 MAR - SALISBURY - Salisbury Playhouse | salisburyplayhouse.com
21 MAR - NORWICH - Norwich Playhouse | norwichplayhouse.co.uk
22 MAR - GUILDFORD - Star Inn | guildfordfringe.com
23 MAR - COLCHESTER - Lakeside Theatre | lakesidetheatre.org.uk
24 MAR - HARLOW - Harlow Playhouse | harlowplayhouse.co.uk
25 MAR - CARDIFF - Chapter Arts Centre | chapter.org
28-29 MAR - NEWCASTLE - Northern Stage | northernstage.co.uk
30 MAR - OXFORD - Old Fire Station | oldfirestation.org.uk
31 MAR - FARNHAM - Farnham Maltings | farnhammaltings.com
1 APR - BEDFORD - Quarry Theatre | quarrytheatre.org.uk
5 APR - SUNDERLAND - Pop Recs, Sunderland | sunderlandstages.co.uk
6 APR - READING - South Street Arts | readingarts.com
7 APR - HAVANT - The Spring Arts Centre | thespring.co.uk
8 APR - MIILTON KEYNES - The Stables | stables.org
11 APR - GLASGOW - Platform | platform-online.co.uk
12 APR - LANCASTER - The Dukes | dukes-lancaster.org
21 APR - CAMBRIDGE - Cambridge Junction | junction.co.uk
22 APR - CALSTOCK - Calstock Village Hall | calstockhall.com
28 APR - CARDIGAN - Small World Theatre | smallworld.org.uk
29-30 APR - MACHYNLLETH - Comedy Festival | machcomedyfest.co.uk
2-6 MAY - PLYMOUTH - The Drum, Theatre Royal | theatreroyal.co.uk
8-10 MAY - LONDON - Soho Theatre | sohotheatre.com
11 MAY - BIRMINGHAM - mac | macbirmingham.co.uk
12 MAY - CORSHAM - Pound Arts | poundarts.org.uk
13 MAY - FRITWELL - Fritwell Village Hall | fritwellvillagehall.co.uk
15 MAY - HOVE - The Old Market | theoldmarket.com
19 MAY - FAREHAM - Ashcroft Arts Centre | hampshireculturaltrust.org.u
20 MAY - EASTLEIGH - The Point | thepointeastleigh.co.uk
21 MAY - IPSWICH - New Wolsey Theatre | wolseytheatre.co.uk
23 MAY - EDINBURGH - The Stand | thestand.co.uk
24 MAY - GLASGOW - The Stand | thestand.co.uk
25 MAY - MONIAIVE - Craigdarroch Arms | craigdarrocharmshotel.co.uk
26 MAY - BARNSLEY - The Civic | barnsleycivic.co.uk
27 MAY - SALFORD - The Lowry | thelowry.com
Eat The Poor was created with support from: Arts Council England, Pentabus Theatre, Bike Shed Theatre Exeter, Arts at the Old Fire Station Oxford, Old Red Lion Theatre London & Farnham Maltings.
Chronotopes @ Random
I have no idea whether this is useful to anyone or not, but here we
go. In Bakhtin's notion of the chronotope, genre is defined by its attitudes towards time and space. The example most commonly used, 'adventure time', which is used by Hellenistic romance novels, is distinctive because it uses a 'considerable' amount of time and space (the story takes ages and roves about the place) but has limited change (the protagonists are in love at the start, and end in love).
I had a look at a few genres and decided to suggest their chronotopes, using 'time', 'space' and 'change' as the three categories, and deciding that they could either be 'considerable' or 'limited'.
Let's start with Greek Tragedy.
It has 'limited time' (it happens within 24 hours) and 'limited space' (a single scene): that's following Aristotle. But it also has 'considerable change' for the protagonist (a major shift in their self-understanding, or death, or something big. Isn't that Aristotle's reversal, pretty much?)
Now I am comparing it to farce. Limited time, limited space, limited change. Shakespearean tragedy: considerable time, space and change.
Maybe I could make a chart?
Beckettian Tragedy: LT, LS, LC
Aristophanic Comedy: CT, LS, CC
Life: LT, CS, CC
And so on. What options do we have?
Let's take LT, CS, CC... that matches the graphic novel Watchmen by Gibbon and Moore.
I suppose there are some problems. What counts as 'considerable' time? What are the boundaries of a particular genre? If I take, say, classical ballet, is there sufficient conformity to reduce genre down to such a simple formula? And if two genres end up with the same formula, does that prevent this from being a meaningful way of defining genre altogether?
I had a look at a few genres and decided to suggest their chronotopes, using 'time', 'space' and 'change' as the three categories, and deciding that they could either be 'considerable' or 'limited'.
Let's start with Greek Tragedy.
It has 'limited time' (it happens within 24 hours) and 'limited space' (a single scene): that's following Aristotle. But it also has 'considerable change' for the protagonist (a major shift in their self-understanding, or death, or something big. Isn't that Aristotle's reversal, pretty much?)
Now I am comparing it to farce. Limited time, limited space, limited change. Shakespearean tragedy: considerable time, space and change.
Maybe I could make a chart?
Beckettian Tragedy: LT, LS, LC
Aristophanic Comedy: CT, LS, CC
Life: LT, CS, CC
And so on. What options do we have?
Let's take LT, CS, CC... that matches the graphic novel Watchmen by Gibbon and Moore.
I suppose there are some problems. What counts as 'considerable' time? What are the boundaries of a particular genre? If I take, say, classical ballet, is there sufficient conformity to reduce genre down to such a simple formula? And if two genres end up with the same formula, does that prevent this from being a meaningful way of defining genre altogether?
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)