David Brooks...now in gist form.
Once upon a time in 1957 things were pretty sweet and "groupy" even though creative people felt stifled and discrimination was kinda bad.
Then some stuff happened. Some 1960s stuff.
Now things are great for people with "fast flexible and diverse networks" who can use that "social capital to create their own worlds".Congratulations; you have now consumed the entire gist of Mr. Brooks' 02/21/12 column
On the other hand, things really suck for people who don't have access to those "fast flexible and diverse networks", especially poor people who don't have all of that social capital to draw on.
Somebody should really do something about that.
The End
No surprise that Mr. Brooks conspicuously omits from his 800-word contribution to the English language any mention of the fact that it was the triumph of the pillars of the Right -- radically anti-government Conservatism and Capitalism -- which caused most of ruin which he now bemoans, but there is nothing new here. Nothing that Richard Sennett wasn't reporting on long ago (via my post on the World Economic Forum ["Privilege has its Memberships"] here is what sociologist Richard Sennett had this to say about how the New Ruling Class views us little, shire-folk:)
The dizzy life of Davos manor that Adam Curtis wasn't building documentaries around
Yet I had an epiphany of sorts in Davos, listening to the rulers of the flexible realm. "We" is also a dangerous pronoun to them. They dwell comfortably in entrepreneurial disorder, but fear organised confrontation. They of course fear the resurgence of unions, but become acutely and personally uncomfortable, fidgeting or breaking eye contact or retreating into taking notes, if forced to discuss the people who, in their jargon, are "left behind." They know that the great majority of those who toil in the flexible regime are left behind, and of course they regret it. But the flexibility they celebrate does not give, it cannot give, any guidance for the conduct of an ordinary life. The new masters have rejected careers in the old English sense of the word, as pathways along which people can travel; durable and sustained paths of action are foreign territories.
a decade ago.
Of course, in Chicago we have a less delicate word for a system which guarantees the success of the few through fast flexible and diverse networks and unlimited "social capital".
We call it "Clout".
"Clout" in Chicagospeak means influence, pull, insiderhood. It mean when the rain falls you do not get wet. When mud splashes, it does not get on you. It means the answer to the question "Who's your clout?" defines where you stand in the power structure.
The world of "Clout" exists in a completely different and non-intersecting orbit with both the idea of a social safety net -- that society should be sufficiently ordered so as to protect the those without access to vast reserves of "social capital" from the brutal whims of entrepreneurial disorder -- and the idea of merit and ability. Not that there aren't meritorious and able people in the Clout Universe -- the lords and ladies of clout have need of an artisan class of talented individuals and are willing to reward that talent. Nor that socially minded insiders don't take on good causes on behalf of the less fortunate. No, the real test for whether or not you are within clout's event horizon --
"In layman's terms [event horizon] is defined as "the point of no return" i.e. the point at which the gravitational pull becomes so great as to make escape impossible."
-- the moment when clout reveals itself most nakedly -- is what happens when the chips are down. When there is not enough to go around and the lords and ladies of clout actually have to decide who gets in the lifeboat and who does not.
That is the moment when it becomes painfully clear whether or not the exertions of every other force in the professional world pale in comparison with the power of clout.
Of course, when the power of clout quietly asserts itself behind the opaque walls of government and business its effects can only be inferentially quantified: like figuring out the size and orbit of hypothetical planets in distant solar systems by the effects of those planets on their suns.
But in other occupations where the work product is very public and therefor very measurable, the perturbations caused by clout bright and clear.
Especially in a profession where so many competent, capable professionals are being kicked to the curb while the fortunes of a few blithering idiots with an assload of "social capital" keep inexplicably rising.
Say, for example, in the
area
of
political
"journalism".
.
1. There is a Club.
2. You are not in it.
6 comments:
don't want to be in the club. want to take a club to the club. used to be the club would let you clean up the crumbs; now they don't want to even leave crumbs. the crumbs are all in the club.
drift, I read, appreciate, and agree with a large percentage of your blog, but really, bashing shitty columnists is just getting tired. No one reading your blog disagrees with you or if they don't, they're not going to have their minds changed about David Brooks, Friedman, or Sullivan. I like Sullivan's "tory-aggregate approach" or whatever other stance-dancing epithept he's worthy of, and I also enjoy your blog (when you take on policy, issues and candidates). They can exist comfortably as mutually exclsuvie entities within the same blogosphere.
Your commentary doesnt change any of it, and instead it reeks a bit of pettiness, when I think you're capable of being much, much more.
I feel you're betraying your own intelligence (which appears remarkable) and insight (equally impressive) by focusing on other Op-Ed writers and bloggers, rather than the issues of the day. Beating them at their own game would be more effective, more entertaining, and frankly, more satisfying for you.
Anyway, I hope the compliments are not interpreted as backhanded; they're most certainly not. I just find myself routinely tuning out when these subjects are other writers. You know the saying about small minds discussing people, average discussing events, and great minds discussing ideas. Discuss the ideas. You appear to be more than capable of dominating that landscape.
i'm a noob here, but i have to agree w/ "livingminimal." they are obvious sycophants and everyone who comes here sees right through them beforehand, while the rightwing base are too illiterate to pay them attention (i doubt most of them even know who they are). MSM have been busily making the 99% irrelevant (as anything other than gullible suckers). that pendulum is swinging back and most intelligent people now see the MSM itself as irrelevant.
these people are mere toadies; courtiers whose main audience are their masters, who enjoy their flattery and richly reward them for telling them what they want to hear (and putting in print, something i think they prize overly much in an era when most of what goes on record is laughably obvious self-serving bull).
these putzes are symptoms, not the disease.
no offense. you're smart and on target, would love to see you aim above these slugs more often.
Mega-dittos to the above! (Irony intended.)
Bobo, the Mustache of Flatness, Doof-hat and the rest of the columnists you so aptly skewer are as dead as Broder. I suppose there are a few hundreds of thousands of folks who read these putzes, and maybe half of them have their worldview affected by them. But do these members of the sheople-herd have any importance? (Not that the handful of readers of this blog, and pretty much every other blog out there, have any more influence. None of us are in the club...)
I don't read the NYT columnists you dissect. I have better things to do with my time. Therefore, I do not read analyses of their maunderings. Except for when Charles Pierce rips into "What the gobshites are saying today." I just read that for the splendidness of his invective. I try to work "gombeen men" into conversations where I can. I don't even pay that much attention to his Moral Hazard chew-ups of Bobo, because, who gives a fuck.
I enjoy your smarts, Drifty. Using them on the dreck-peddlers is like putting a sophisticated chemical lab to work analyzing the contents of what just dropped out of a horse's ass. It might be more oat-based one day, have a different nitrogen content another day, but it's always basically horse shit. We don't need a sophisticated chemical lab to remind us of that. Don't you get tired of mass spectrometering the same shit all the time? Thing of the brain cells you've lost doing that!
P.S. Good luck finding work. I am SO glad I got a licence to wipe peoples' asses. I never lack for a paycheque, and that humble trade has allowed me to move from country to country as a legal working immigrant. I wish you, and every other thinking person, had it as good as I do.
I think the scathing critique of these journos needs to be made as often as possible, if only to build the record of criticism that we can look back on 10 years from now when Breitbart and Drudge have their 800 word columns dumping out weekly from the Koch brothers owned NYT. I also learned of the existence of "The Century of Self" because of it. Thanks Drifty!
You're doing just fine, drifty.
Keep it up and forget these naysayers.
Post a Comment