In his recent essay on Forrest Gump (cross-posted here, I believe) Wally Bowen challenges the movie for being, among other things, irresponsibly personal and individual (and I do not believe I overstate by using the word "irresponsibly"). He says, in conclusion: >> Bringing to life a larger progressive vision will be all the more difficult because of our popular culture's relentless focus on the individual and its validation of the status quo. But one step toward this larger vision is the awareness that our popular culture is political, and that its meanings must be critically and relentlessly challenged. We can begin by appreciating the beauty of Gump's innocence and devotion, while recognizing that he is incapable of challenging the larger society's shortcomings and resisting "the nostalgia that puts us to moral sleep." Because of his handicap, Gump cannot choose; but we can.<< Again, I think we see the triumph of dead collectivist ideology over live thinking here, and I remain dismayed by the unwillingness of Bowen and his ilk to at least admit that deductivist metanarrative criticism has been indicted. Lyotard, for one, has argued quite persuasively that our culture has passed the point where traditional grand narratives such as liberalism, marxism, Christianity, and dare I even say feminism can lend sufficient meaning to our lives. To be sure these social theories had their day and each contributed significantly to the advancement of our thinking. Liberalism provided an enlightened way for us to reorganize power in our societies, and whatever failing the US and the other great Western democracies may exhibit today, it would be hard, if not impossible, to argue that such democracies represented an unprecedented improvement over the totalitarian monarchies which dominated Europe prior to the late 18th Century. Marxism, likewise, lent a voice to the very real struggle of common laborers against the exploitative practices of capitalist factory owners, and there is reason to wonder how bad the American worker might have it today absent the Marx-influenced advances of the Western labor movement. And so on, and so on, and so on. Still, it doesn't take a genius to look at corporate America run wild in the 80s and 90s and conclude that something is horribly amiss. Tocqueville's "self-interest, rightly understood" got neatly neutered somewhere along the line, and we exist today in a society of "self-interest, right NOW." Our institutions are not governed by any sense of enlightened virtue, and as scandal piles upon scandal in our whorehouse of a government we have very real cause to wonder if, in fact, the truth will out. Marxism, as well, has proven an abject failure, and the only people who don't realize it are American tenured intellectuals. To argue that the fall of the Soviet Empire wasn't really about Marxism at all is facile - to the best of my knowledge there has never been any practical exercise in governance which came close to mirroring the theoretical ideals of the system's founders. As such, the failure of the best possible execution indicts the theory whole cloth. Theories of social organization, left unapplied, are at best masturbatory. Regarding Marxism, we do not see merely the failure of the best execution. We have seen the undeniable collapse of ALL executions. I could slaughter more photons on the failings of Christianity and feminism, but I think the careful reader pretty clearly sees where I'm heading. Bowen's essay is essentially urging us to reject the appealing individuality of Forrest Gump in favor of a larger exercise in deductivist social theorizing. The argument he puts forth is seductive: the failure of the left to mobilize a coherent social philosophy has created a vacuum into which the rabid right can funnel feel-good status quo (at least he managed to avoid using the word "hegemony," and for that I applaud him) drivel like Gump. Such a "discourse" distracts the critical liberal mind from its proper function - that being the construction of enlightened left-leaning social policy. Yes, well. As I say, this is seductive stuff. Nonetheless, it is painfully misguided. Bowen proposes precisely the same form of top-down intellectualism that doomed the left in the first place. If the left has failed it has been because Americans have examined the evidence with which they have been presented and found it lacking. The metanarratives of the left found no resonance among the "people" - the great mass of voters who were essential to the implementation of these great programs. Without being catty, I don't think I stretch too far in indicting the salon liberal mindset which gets quite impassioned about the plight of the masses, but which never quite manages to make meaningful contact with these masses either. I do not here offer a new idea. Hoggart, in his brilliant THE USES OF LITERACY, attacks England's university-bound parlor Marxists for knowing little, if anything at all, about the human beings who make up that "class" of workers. The absolute worst I have ever read is Stuart Hall, who in one piece openly laments the need for theory to deal with the "problem" of "people." Well, my leanings are clear enough. I grew up working class in a suburban/rural Southern home, and for me these people aren't a class at all. I also know them well enough to know that Forrest Gump provides a far better window into their world than all the leftist grand theory ever constructed. I do not claim to be a disciple of Lyotard, who I think remains an elitist at heart, but I have no doubt that he is correct in asserting that theories which are constructed artificially and then imposed deductively upon reality are doomed to fail. I offer one simple assumption for your consideration: the big picture is composed of many small pictures. I do not see FG as proto-conservative backlash. On the contrary - I see Forrest as the embodiment of many humanistic values which we of the "left" claim to value highly. Let's not forget that Forrest rejected Christianity, too - a strange thing to find in a reactionary bit of conservativism, don't you think? Lt. Dan: Have you found Jesus? Forrest: I didn't know I was supposed to be looking for him. Contemporary British audience researchers are onto something. Ignoring criticism from the macro-theorists like Bowen, they have taken to studying individuals and families in their homes. They are involved in what some refer to as "grounded" theory - social theory which emanates from the actual data of people's lives, from the actual fruits of our studied observations. Such theory is inductive - issuing from the ground up. And I would suggest to one and all that we finally dispense with the proven failures of the past - deposit Bowen in the nearest trash can, as it were - and commence developing a sense of the humanist left which can provide a viable alternative in the minds of the individuals who comprise the mass of American society. ================================================================== Samuel Random Smith Center for Mass Media Research 303.543.8610 (voice) University of Colorado [log in to unmask] ==================================================================