“Style as Ideology,
Ideology as Style” is one of four “meditations”—as I call them—penned by Pierce
Timberlake. It is the second of the four that I have read, having previously reviewed "The Art of Living Forever."
In this outing,
Timberlake delves into the way we develop our political leanings. Along the way
he detours to the mechanics of history’s great political conundrum: Left vs
Right, vis-à-vis how they each view the “other,” and offers suggestions for
developing a balanced and nuanced approach to forming opinions about the
various issues of the day that confront us. We get a fair and balanced in-depth
observation of the political spectrum—all the while digging deeper into the theme
of the book, an exploration of why and how we form our opinions.
“Style as Ideology...”
is divided into three parts. The first deals with Timberlake’s experience at a
heavy metal concert that he attended as chaperone for his young (at the time) son. It’s these observations of the crowd behavior
that initially led him to this particular philosophical journey. He is drawn to
the sociological implications inherent in being in a crowd of like-minded
enthusiasts. Their shared realities. The need to conform? Can even a
heavy-metal “artistic” milieu serve as a reference point to discovering how we
form our ideological worldviews?
The second part of
the book begins with Timberlake’s experience judging a high school debate
contest. Sure enough, one from the Left and one from the Right prove to be the
choices Timberlake has to choose between.
Using this school debate
over the military presence of the US in Europe as a springboard, Timberlake eventually
wades into the ultimate debate between “liberal” and “conservative” viewpoints.
This leads to
comparisons between two single mothers of Timberlake’s acquaintance: Janey and
Maria. Two women of vastly different character; each serve as caricatures for
Left and Right tropes of liberal indulgence on the one hand and righteous
compassion for the working poor on the other.
“Janey,” the
deadbeat abuser of the system is everything that is wrong with the welfare
mentality, according to conservatives.
“Maria,” on the
other hand, the hardscrabble single mother working multiple jobs to make ends
meet for her and her brood, epitomizes the raison-d’être of the Left’s social compact.
From these
observations, Timberlake launches into an in-depth analysis of liberal and
conservative worldviews.
He cuts to the nub
with his this bit of analysis:
The conservative’s ideal person is the
self-reliant rugged individualist.
and,
The liberal’s ideal person is the beneficent
sharer.
It is hard to argue
with this, seemingly simplistic reduction. It rings true. And perhaps it is
here that the dissection can be most fruitful.
The beneficent
sharer. An ideal. Can there be anything inherently wrong with this? But what
happens when there is not enough to share? Where does the sharer’s obligation
end? A Randian (Ayn Rand devotee) might argue that every iota of energy spent not producing inevitably detracts from
the total availability of goods and services. What about those that are selfish
and don’t want to share? Do the sharers then have to overcompensate, further
diluting their own productivity?
As far as the
conservative’s ideal man, the self-reliant rugged individualist, I find this too
utopian. The problem with libertarians is that they envision a world of
self-enlightened, individualist ‘type A’ performers who are always looking to
create something. But supposedly the “mass of men lead lives of quiet
desperation.” Aren’t there more people in the world who just want to have a
“job,” with all life’s securities that used to come with one, rather than an
opportunity to explore their own capabilities and leave a mark on the world?
The realist has to
acknowledge this mass of people. I don’t think libertarianism does.
I do have one bone
to pick with Timberlake’s analysis of liberal vs. conservative.
The Left now eschews
the label “liberal,” in favor of “progressive.” Because of this, the waters
have been muddied. Are today’s “progressives” really “liberal,” in the classical
meaning of the word?
Timberlake claims
that liberals are, generally speaking, opponents of censorship (while
acknowledging their favoring of government control in other matters such as gun
control).
But is this really
the case? Many conservatives argue that it is the Left that is the overwhelming
threat to freedom and free speech in particular. Just look at any of the myriad
cases of college campuses silencing dissenting voices on any speech that
contradicts the accepted politically correct narratives on any of the “social
justice” issues du jour.
This new anti-free speech
movement is chilling, and has led to a new phrase bandied with growing
frequency: “liberal fascism.” Classic liberals
should be appalled at how their offsprings’ generation has misappropriated
their philosophy.
The middle section
of the book includes a thoughtful examination of communism versus capitalism,
and raises good questions regarding our own mixture of socialism and capitalism
in relation to such critical concerns as health care.
The last section of “Style
as Ideology...” begins with a frightening hiking experience. Timberlake uses
his experience getting lost on the trail to illustrate a fundamental feature of
the human condition: the need to make sensory information conform to our own
predetermined thought patterns—and how that serves as a metaphor for how we
collate and filter information to fit our preconceived worldviews.
Timberlake uses a
childhood experience viewing homes in the distance from his window as another
metaphor for how the mind misplaces and misjudges distances, both physical and
ideological.
How can we develop
balanced, measured opinions? How do we walk the line between self-examination
and self-corroboration? It is the latter which we do far more often, as people
endlessly cross the t’s and dot the i’s of
what they think they already know, further refining their ideology without ever
questioning it
as Timberlake eloquently
puts it.
Timberlake does
arrive at a solution for avoiding ideological purity. But you’ll have to read
the book to find the answer.
-- Mark Charalambous
