3beebies aka Breakfast

[mercia]

indifference

oh good, back to the subject of Radio 3 Breakfast

[Serial_Apologist]

[french frank]

you're not saying that emotion has nothing to do with the brain? (rhetorical question)

Um, no. I don't think one could say that But I suppose I mean an awareness of thoughts (e.g. of the recognition of a recurring theme) rather than the experience of feelings. People may say it doesn't matter, but if you notice it, then you notice it ...

[aeolium]

[Perhaps there is a case for arguing that illiberalism has certain cultural 'benefits'. Russia, it seems, and China, have the kind of public cultural standards that we might prefer.]

It's a very poor case, and I think one that only those with little idea of life under totalitarian regimes would advance. Is this really the sort of image of 'cultural standards' that we want to prefer?

[french frank]

It's a very poor case, and I think one that only those with little idea of life under totalitarian regimes would advance. Is this really the sort of image of 'cultural standards' that we want to prefer?

I didn't think my comment was any kind of recommendation for illiberal regimes themselves! The point is surely that 'freedom' may be seen as a good thing, in an abstract way, but the effects can be less than desirable. Popular culture (and I mean 'culture' in the broad sense) is provided and devoured. A dictatorship might well clamp down on the excesses, declare them anti-patriotic or whatever. We might still prefer freedom, in the abstract, but let's not pretend that the results - of mass culture and mass media - are universally beneficial.

[John Skelton]

Just a quick post - there is nothing in Mark Fisher recommending or endorsing totalitarianism (either Stalinist or Maoist or neo-liberal): the quote I posted needs to be read in the context of an argument concerning the totalitarian effect of freedom to choose whatever it is we already know you'll choose and you will because it's entirely natural for you to do so, that's freedom of choice.

He does point to the paradox that Tarkovsky's films emerged from the inertia and nullity of Brezhnev's USSR. He doesn't say anything about post-communist Russia, though the frenetic post-modern kitsch of this http://rt.com/news/prime-time/abramo...oscow-gallery/ tells a story.

[french frank]

Yes, when the term 'illiberalism' was mentioned, I wasn't in any case thinking exclusively of political regimes, but also of cultural illiberalism. You could, for example, say Poland had an 'illiberal' culture to the extent that it is strongly influenced by the Church. And you seemed also to be querying the implications of 'paternalism' which could also be applied to the Church's power over people's behaviour.

It's taken for granted (I think) that the teaching of young children has to be in a measure 'paternalistic' in that the teacher, or educational system, teaches the children what is agreed is 'right and good' for them. At what point does this form of paternalism - 'teacher knows best' - become not acceptable and not accepted? [And what is it that is 'right and good' for pupils?]

[aeolium]

The point is surely that 'freedom' may be seen as a good thing, in an abstract way, but the effects can be less than desirable. Popular culture (and I mean 'culture' in the broad sense) is provided and devoured. A dictatorship might well clamp down on the excesses, declare them anti-patriotic or whatever. We might still prefer freedom, in the abstract, but let's not pretend that the results - of mass culture and mass media - are universally beneficial.

But surely that's an unavoidable quality of freedom that it can result in effects that can be less than desirable, and that the results of mass culture and mass media are not universally beneficial (I don't think anyone's pretending that they are). But I think that those effects and results are infinitely less damaging than the effects and results of an illiberal culture, and 'approved' views and art. And the freedom to express views concretely - not just in the abstract - and with few restrictions is surely a basic requirement these days for any kind of art to flourish. I don't think we realise just how diverse and multifarious cultural expression is compared with what it used to be under more paternalistic cultures. You may think that's for the worse, but I don't.

the quote I posted needs to be read in the context of an argument concerning the totalitarian effect of freedom to choose whatever it is we already know you'll choose and you will because it's entirely natural for you to do so, that's freedom of choice.

But I just don't think that's an appropriate use of the word totalitarian. If that were the case, everyone would choose 'whatever it is we already know you'll choose' but they don't. Do you? That's quite different from an externally imposed approved choice (or no choice).

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

the individuals in charge of bbc radio are under the direction of a senior marketing executive from pepsi cola .... we therefore suffer from highly inapropriate models and metaphors being applied to the msission and performance of R3 ..... additionally, even if R3 were to rediscover more fitting metaphors and models for their activities, it is doubtful whether they would have the requisite authority and nous to actually deliver it in quite the way some of us may have become accustomed to .... the fact that senior execitives in the bbc are now paid disgracefully inflated salaries and benefits would indicate that the corporation is not immune from the zeitgeist ....their response to listener commentary on their performnace is further evidence of their coformity to this spirit of the times .... most call centre script writers and executives must be envious of the sheer impenetrability of the bbc shield against critique .....

[kernelbogey]

the individuals in charge of bbc radio are under the direction of a senior marketing executive from pepsi cola ....

Is this true or a rhetorical flourish aCDJ?

[french frank]

Is this true or a rhetorical flourish aCDJ?

Absolutely true. Mark Thompson invited Tim Davie, a marketing executive at Pepsi Cola, previously with Procter & Gamble, to join the BBC as head of the marketing division. Three years later, to the stupefaction of all, he appointed him as successor to the radio veteran Jenny Abramsky to head BBC Audio and Music, even though he had no experience of broadcasting and less of radio.

The results indicate that he was appointed to promote BBC radio, not develop or improve it.

[french frank]

But surely that's an unavoidable quality of freedom that it can result in effects that can be less than desirable, and that the results of mass culture and mass media are not universally beneficial (I don't think anyone's pretending that they are).

Perhaps I should have dared to go further and suggested that the effects of mass culture can be damaging, not necessarily on the artists themselves and how they choose to express them, but on a uniformly populist public. And that, in turn, can affect the way the artist's voice is heard - or not heard.

But I think that those effects and results are infinitely less damaging than the effects and results of an illiberal culture, and 'approved' views and art.

I wouldn't disagree with that. But I was thinking more along the 'paternalistic' lines, especialy in education, and the education of the mass public - including the future artists.

How can people make free choices if they are ignorant of the choices available to them? And that applies to the artists as well as the general public.

[John Skelton]

an illiberal culture, and 'approved' views and art. And the freedom to express views concretely - not just in the abstract - and with few restrictions is surely a basic requirement these days for any kind of art to flourish. I don't think we realise just how diverse and multifarious cultural expression is compared with what it used to be under more paternalistic cultures. You may think that's for the worse, but I don't.

But does the market not provide approved views and expressions of those views in art? (including approved forms of internal 'critique'? The 'Green' advertising campaign or movie, the narrative of bad capitalism versus good? Or even ubiquitous 'irony': nobody takes art or politics or this stuff seriously, nobody fools us etc.) The ubiquity of a form of mass popular culture itself is fantastically restrictive and is a very successful method of imposition; it disallows something that isn't practically even made available. Isn't some form of paternalism (to use that word) in the sense of giving people a choice by ensuring that they make a choice, that they can't just opt out of choice and accept pre-chosen choices, a pre-condition of freedom? The mass cultural interests in society aren't interested in freedom or imagination: they are interested in profit and control. I completely agree this shouldn't involve going back to whenever (any more than I believe socialism should involve a nostalgic revival of command economies), but I'd argue that post-modern freedom is a terrible form of unfreedom.

[barber olly]

the individuals in charge of bbc radio are under the direction of a senior marketing executive from pepsi cola ..most call centre script writers and executives must be envious of the sheer impenetrability of the bbc shield against critique ..... ..

Perhaps explains PT - high on caffeine?
BBC mug us for our licence fee and then give us what they think is appropriate, it's about time we were given shareholders' rights!
Roger Wrong get it right!!!!!!

[aeolium]

Perhaps I should have dared to go further and suggested that the effects of mass culture can be damaging, not necessarily on the artists themselves and how they choose to express them, but on a uniformly populist public.

I'm not sure what sort of damage you are thinking of. Much greater damage is caused imo by poor social and economic conditions, deprivation and poverty. And what you call mass culture is, in the end, experienced by many distinct individuals each of whom may well have different experiences as well as different tastes in other things. Some of those who experience mass culture may also be keen on minority interests - dare I say there may even be such people on this august forum? The point is that you don't really know much about how people experience what you call 'mass culture' and you are not really interested in either the culture or those people's experiences. It's largely guesswork and assumption, and a belief that it is in some way damaging.

That there are many more outlets and opportunities to experience popular culture compared with minority interests like classical music is certainly true, but it doesn't mean that there still aren't a lot of opportunities to experience the latter - far more so and far more accessibly (I mean in price, frequency, variety) than in earlier more paternalistic days.

How can people make free choices if they are ignorant of the choices available to them? And that applies to the artists as well as the general public.

I agree that education is extremely important - including music education - and that education should extend well into adulthood. But part of that should be to make people aware of how they can find out about different aspects of culture themselves, how they can make their own choices. Far more people are being educated to degree level here than were 50 years ago, there are free museums, libraries (for how much longer? ), institutions like the Open University. I should think people ought to be less ignorant of the choices available to them than their forebears used to be.