LITTLE LYRICAL SUITE
1. for bowery
My girl's for chaos & black flag of progress
juggernaut crawl with a
book-burning boiler
"War Nomad" blazoned, her prow plows the fallen
and
breaks all crosspieces. You fear? I adore her.
2. for 86th street
Sugarcube shoeblocks
architect cardboard.
A fly screams entrapment
between tissue papers.
Arrest me,
I'm whistling.
3. for ludlow street
A theory
of human asymmetry,
borrowed from meatpackers,
punks and
free riders.
Halfwayworld objects,
birdeyes cocked and staring.
When your lips
lace up
just say it with scraps,
strays,
vice packets,
tiles &
trashed kewpies.
Screaming
fits.
Monkey balm.
Cats and kettles.
Life on the go-round.
4. for mercer street
Ants, acid.
5. for 2nd avenue
I think i'll wake up today she thought
6. for the Family Circus
Seamy keane side of family life.
7. for bonita
I'm too creative
FAIR LADY
Let's meet right after work and go out slumming
Let's sit away from everybody else,
Let's laugh at those mean boots we used to wear,
THE STICKS
Cassandra,
here in the flat-bottom valley,
No future, you say,
It's damp,
I got my brother's records
(Men shake hands, burst into flame.
On the beanbag sofa,
Among our rust museum,
Let's watch the future:
Mom's gone,
we been here
ODE TO A NOVELTY DESK STATUETTE
It's the perfect little stand-in
It's round and sad and silly,
Its response
Wonder, whimper
Every little hitler ought to have one.
They make such innocent victims
From: Bad Subjects
This text may be used and shared in accordance with the fair-use provisions of
U.S. copyright law, and it may be archived and redistributed in electronic form,
provided that the editors are notified and no fee is charged for access.
Archiving, redistribution, or republication of this text on other terms, in any
medium, requires the consent of the author and the notification of _Bad
Subjects_ at badsubjects-request@uclink.berkeley.edu.
GRAMSCI RUSH: LIMBAUGH ON THE 'CULTURE WAR' Charlie Bertsch
"When you hear about 'the Culture War,' ladies and gentlemen, know that this is
what it's all about. It's a war of competing ideas and worldviews. On one side,
you have people who believe in living by a set of divinely inspired moral
absolutes -- or, at the very least, they believe that following such a moral
code represents the best way to avoid chaos and instability. On the other side,
you have people who insist that morality is simply a personal decision. Any
attempt to enforce it is viewed as oppression."
Rush Limbaugh's second book of political commentary, _See, I Told You So_, shows
every sign of being as big a hit as his first, _The Way Things Ought To Be_.
Like Pearl Jam's second album _Vs._, it was shipped in massive quantities prior
to release -- its initial print run of two million copies set a publishing
industry record -- and rushed to the top of the charts after its first week out
in stores. In other words, the book is exactly the sort of 'success' American
leftists have traditionally dismissed out of hand. Since we at _Bad Subjects_
try to fly in the face of conventional leftist wisdom, however, I made a point
of picking it up while waiting in an airport this past December. Imagine my
surprise when I opened the book to read that "in the early 1900s, an obscure
Italian communist by the name of Antonio Gramsci theorized that it would take a
'long march through the institutions' before socialism and relativism would be
victorious." I read on to learn how "Gramsci theorized that by capturing these
key institutions and using their power, cultural values would be changed,
traditional morals would be broken down, and the stage would be set for the
political and economic power of the West to fall" (p.87). I was taken aback and
felt much the same way I had two years earlier upon learning that Nirvana's
_Nevermind_ had topped the Billboard charts. "When did the Left get so big?" I
wondered to myself.
I continued reading to find that although "the name Gramsci is certainly not a
household name...his name and theories are well known and understood throughout
leftist intellectual circles," that "leftist think tanks worship at Gramsci's
altar," and that "Gramsci succeeded in defining a strategy for waging cultural
warfare -- a tactic that has been adopted by the modern left, and which remains
the last great hope for chronic America-bashers" (p.87). After my initial shock,
my first intellectual response to Rush's argument was that he was right about a
lot of things, but was, for obvious reasons, grossly overestimating the Left's
power and influence. I mean, after all, the people who practice the sort of
'cultural studies' the Bad Subjects Collective admires really *do* "worship at
Gramsci's altar." Famous names in the field like Stuart Hall and Lawrence
Grossberg have devoted article after article to updating Gramscian arguments for
contemporary situations. Indeed, quite a few of our own articles in _Bad
Subjects_ have strongly echoed both the style and content of Gramsci's writings.
My question, however, was why a best- selling author like Limbaugh felt it
necessary to point this out to his public. Why bother with the "obscure Italian
communist" and his devotees?
Throughout _See, I Told You So_ Rush binds together arguments familiar from his
radio and TV shows and _The Way Things Ought To Be_ into a comprehensive
strategy for the American right. He tries to alarm his readers by arguing that
America is moving "toward socialism and statism" because conservatives "have
lost control of...cultural institutions" (p.87). He goes on to note that "the
left has been very successful because it understands the importance of
culture--of framing the debate and influencing the way people think about
problems." Rush wants his readers to know that "the Culture War is a bilateral
conflict" in which conservatives can take part: "Why don't we simply get in the
game and start competing for control of these key cultural institutions? In
other words, why not fight back?" In Gramscian terms, Rush is claiming that the
liberal left is the "dominant fundamental group" in the sphere of civil society,
where the masses are not militarily or legally coerced, but convinced to give
their 'spontaneous' consent to the "general direction imposed on social life" by
that dominant group (_An Antonio Gramsci Reader_, pp. 306-7). He agrees with
Gramsci's argument that the power of the ruling class must be understood both as
the 'direct domination' enforced by state power and the 'hegemony' that class
wins by achieving the spontaneous consent of the masses in civil society, but
shares with many contemporary leftists a desire to emphasize the primacy of
'hegemony' over 'direct domination'. His argument implies that the liberal left
is the United States' true ruling class, *regardless of its hold on state
power*, because it controls the nation's cultural institutions. What sets him
apart from "the so-called 'conservative movement,'" he concludes, is that he
does not have "some personal political agenda," and has no "political goal" for
his radio and TV shows, books, and newsletter, but only wants to "open people's
minds" and "encourage them to be confident in themselves and the principles and
values they have always held sacred" (p.88). In other words, he is not
interested in the narrowly-defined field of electoral politics, but the vast
plain on which the Culture War is being waged.
About a week ago I was leafing through magazines at a local newsstand and came
across an article in a socialist publication offering an explanation of why the
*left* was losing the 'Culture War'. Curiously, the author's conclusions were a
mirror image of Rush's: this time it was the *left* that was losing ground
because it had allowed its enemies to take control of cultural institutions. I
suddenly realized that it was not only Rush's reference to Gramsci that had
shocked me, but the fact that it was embedded in the sort of argument about
culture made by leftists who "worship at Gramsci's altar." What we have in _See,
I Told You So_ is another example of a conservative learning to beat the left at
its own game. Just as pro- lifers have schooled themselves in the aggressively
non-violent tactics honed in the 60s and 70s by left-liberal demonstrators for
civil rights, environmental causes, and the peace movement, Rush is schooling
himself and his readers in the construction of a Gramscian argument about
culture *while explaining who Gramsci is and why he is so dangerous*. He is thus
acknowledging, perhaps unconsciously, that he has turned Gramsci on his head and
made him useful to the right.
This still doesn't adequately explain Rush's intentions in naming Gramsci. Most
right-wing movements that have borrowed from the left have tended to do so in a
general way, adopting useful tactics without acknowledging any specific source.
Rush, on the other hand, informs his readers that he is acquainted with the
theoretical source for the notion of 'cultural warfare'. Does he want them to
know that he is well-read, that he has done his homework? After all, most of
them will have never heard of Gramsci. Or does he have some other motive?
Superficially, of course, he is merely following in a whole line of red-baiters
who seek to impart to a mass audience the secrets they have unearthed about
dangerous lefties. On this level, Rush's reference to Gramsci is no different
from J. Edgar Hoover's elaboration of Marxist thought in _Masters of Deceit:
What the Communist Bosses are Doing to Bring America to its Knees_ (1958).
What's different about Rush, however, is that, unlike Hoover, he concedes the
terms of debate to his enemy's argument. Indeed, throughout large portions of
_See, I Told You So_, particularly in chapters like "Are Values Obsolete? Or How
to Win the Culture War," "The Politically Correct Liberal Lexicon," and "The
Many Purposes of Culture," Rush elaborates a notion of 'Culture War' that he
admits to having found in the theories of that "obscure Italian communist."
I think Rush concedes the terms of debate to Gramsci for a very specific reason.
As a leftist, the most frustrating thing about reading _See, I Told You So_ is
the way leftists and liberals are lumped together as 'left liberals'. "Wait a
minute," I kept wanting to say, "we leftists spend the vast majority of our time
offering scathing critiques of liberal ideology: how can you pretend that we're
part of the same bloc as liberals?" Now obviously in the realm of electoral
politics the differences between liberals and leftists are glaring: vast numbers
of liberals hold political office; all but a few leftists do not. In the world
of culture, on the other hand, the distinction is a lot blurrier.
Self-proclaimed leftists *do* have positions in cultural institutions like NPR,
PBS, the movie and music industry, and, above all else, universities. They
frequently share the same taste-preferences with liberals: glossy, expensive
paperbacks -- think Vintage -- by multicultural and Modernist authors that are
the wrong size for the shelves at Waldenbooks or B.Dalton; folk and 'world'
music; natural fibers and other L.L. Bean-ware; and nouvelle or ethnic cuisine
of the sort not easy to come by in Peoria. And they often do share with liberals
a 'moral code' predicated on a tolerance for difference *as such* that actually
does aspire to the cultural relativism Rush and his readers fear. By focusing
all his attention on the cultural sphere Rush is thus able to transform
mild-mannered liberals into leftists and take advantage of the residues of anti-
communism that still saturate American society to discredit liberal ideology.
But he's also able to transform 'radical' leftists into liberals, which should
tell give the American left pause. Do we who call ourselves leftists really want
to be functionally equivalent to liberals? On the one hand, it *would* mean that
we're winning the Culture War Rush is talking about, the one in which tolerance
for difference, heartfelt condescension towards those 'poor' oppressed people
whose lives make for vivid fiction, and an unwillingness to thwart 'diversity'
by deeply probing *any* argument because "everything's relative" all *are*
winning out over the old ways, however much the right-wing backlash might have
slowed them down. On the other hand, however, it would mean that we're letting
things be as the ideology of 'laissez-faire' capitalism would like us to. So
what other options do we have? While there are some aspects of Rush's critique
of left-liberalism that a seriously radical left might do well to adopt, there
are others that are antithetical to the most fundamental leftist principles: we
can't just change sides in the Culture War. What we *could* do, however, would
be to work out a position that synthesizes elements of both the right and
liberal-left and, yes, I do mean thinking dialectically.
Arguing *against* the educational reformers who transformed the Italian
educational system in the early 1900s, Gramsci states in the prison notebooks
that the new curricula will bring about a situation in which "we will have
rhetorical schools, quite unserious, because the material solidity of what is
'certain' will be missing, and what is 'true' will be a truth only of words:
that is to say, precisely, rhetoric." He laments the "degeneration in the
secondary school" where "previously, the pupils at least acquired a certain
'baggage' or 'equipment' (according to taste) of concrete facts" but now "the
pupil does not bother with concrete facts and fills his head with formulae and
words which usually mean nothing to him, and which are forgotten at once"
(p.313). Gramsci goes on to argue the virtues of a classical education, noting
that "it will always be an effort to learn physical self-discipline and
self-control" (p.320) but that such effort is necessary if pupils are to learn
the skills serious study requires. This is *not* the argument of the
hyper-tolerant liberal-left Rush rails against. Indeed, it actually sounds
similar to arguments made by conservatives like Allan Bloom, Bill Bennett, and
Rush himself. But in the end, it is fundamentally irreconcilable with such
arguments' intentions, because Gramsci's aim is "to produce a new stratum of
intellectuals' from the proletariat in order to make possible the overthrow of
capitalism. The point here is that it is quite possible to critique the
left-liberal notions Rush attacks without ultimately adopting a conservative
position. Just as Rush argues that the left has no monopoly on cultural warfare,
we must assert that the right has no monopoly on the 'critique of pure
tolerance' that questions the virtues of the 'freedom' made possible by letting
things be.
I could have written an article detailing the ways in which Rush distorts the
'facts', noting how he makes the mistake of equating leftists with liberals, how
he misrepresents Gramsci by turning him into an atheist above all else, and how
he grossly underestimates the power conservatives already have in cultural
institutions. This would have been the sort of article Noam Chomsky writes, a
rational accounting of the ways in which conservatives distort the truth. And I
wouldn't want to argue that there is no place for such an article. However, as
members of the Bad Subjects on-line collective recently argued in a thread on
Chomsky and intellectuals, there is a way in which the absolute conviction
Chomsky has in his own correctness and the confidence with which he debunks
mainstream conceptions can come across as self-righteous, or even paranoid, and
thereby serve to further discredit the left. Not to mention the fact that, if
the right is busy learning from the left, while the left is convinced that the
right has nothing to offer, the right is going to end up with a lot more useful
knowledge about contemporary society. My conclusion, then, is that serious
leftists should borrow from the right in order to transcend it. As you may know,
this is not a new thesis for _Bad Subjects_. The editor's column in issue #1,
Steven Rubio's "Dan Quayle Was Right," our manifesto in issue #7 this past
September, an numerous other pieces have argued similar points. However, as
Gramsci says, when a group challenges notions people take for granted, such as
the idea many left-liberals have that the right should merely be denounced or
dismissed, it is necessary for that group "never to tire of repeating its own
arguments (though offering literary variation of form)," for "repetition Date:
is the best didactic means for working on the popular mentality" (p.340).
Back to the dogbone
in delicate shivers
of biopsy
slides.
Please
help me
use my one life to be
the apogee of amputees.
Nerves clog my
pipespine.
I sing I'm Eve's rib.
I think i'll wear my rosevelvety
dress
and
say to the man in my life
You're the man in my bed
as i talk in my
sleep
Untended accumulations
in the circle
frame
corners.
Stifled peanuthead impulses
seep through to the other side,
the classifieds.
"Mommy, why..."
The ringmaster cracks his whip.
to fall
into the wrong pair of hands.
I'm too
destructive
for
kids
under seven
and life unforgiven.
Limpet-mine love,
no
cancellation.
Heretics, kiss me.
I'm burning exploding
in that part of town
where we
can circulate until we find
a place to look at artists
looking at art,
comment on
their comments,
and get some kind of smashed
on cups of complimentary
white wine.
by the fire exit,
by the sign that
warns of
sirens and bells,
secretly relieved
of the pressure to go sending out
our
selves
to people who we feel
to be just onion skins on billiard
balls.
bitch about the
way
the world
just pokes & prods & makes you wonder
if you're mean enough,
and maybe
put some
time in on the chore
of slowly finding out
that we don't have to poke &
prod each other.
don't go home,
you want to run away from home,
nobody
keeps it up,
wood leans and splits,
paint like birchbark
peels, tin tilts,
even
iron plows and threshers
fuzz away in rust:
under gray,
turned to grays: the
sticks:
the trees,
stripped,
twisted knots of pins.
round here.
the gray collects,
gets thick here in the cellar,
the
carpet grows
the smell of gray,
the plastic wood
warps into space-age
rot,
fades to pink and yellow
where the sun shines in.
when he split.
I hung the coolest covers
up,
down here where I sleep.
A ship sails off the edge.
A woman
on a horse becomes
the gaps between the trees.)
on top of mom's crochet,
Cassy, come and
sit,
watch
the shows come in
through the red-eyed box,
the spidery dish out
back.
it's an artificial heart.
16 payments left on wrestling,
softcore
porn,
the latest special effects.
Dad's out,
Cass, whatcha say:
sitting, watching it for hours,
we still got one thing
left to do.
for the dwarf inside us
all,
calcified, the fetus
some of us just grew around.
weighed down
and often dragged around
by an overstuffed
and useless nose.
to being kicked
and tricked
and buggered about:
at the absence
from this world
of the right
to
undemanded wuv.
to defend.
Bad Subjects Online Services
Copyright (c) 1994 by Charlie Bertsch, all rights reserved.
BAD SUBJECTS ISSUE #12