Writing for Spectators and the Internet

By James Greene

This book of essays presents actors within our historical and contemporary context, at the standpoint of the turn of a twenty-first century. We shall artistically and interpretively think of these societal actors, persons, ideas, authoritative activities, and otherwise as spectators. Being spectators ourselves, we shall add our own contemplation, imagination, and speculation. If we set back upon each other in this way, it is possible to pose some awkwardly fascinating philosophical positions, or at least posit a possibility of interaction between societal actors, spectators, and the thoughts that arise among these events. 

 

This isn't an attempt to defame or dethrone any specific celebrity, politician, or leader, but to look at events and note where a philosophical threshold rises. The spectator—whoever and whatever he is—knowingly or not, enlightens us about something.

 

Examples in our popular culture provide spectatorships—a continual and reoccurring play we call history, having its own characters and actors.

There must be a positive spin to this autonomous development. Once we step back and view the broad, picturesque, panorama, it's all essentially human creations, constructions, and artificial machinations of norms, conceptions, rules, tools, and the like, right?

• Language: English
• Publisher: James Greene
• Release date: Aug 4, 2020
• ISBN: 9781393401681

Book preview

1

An Introduction and Disclaimer

Examples work both ways. Examples are, as Immanuel Kant once said, the go-cart[1] that assists and guides our judgments. The primer is found once the example generally speaks for and describes specifics. However, instead of latching on to a specific instance or individual, we can also discover inspirational moments where the specific brings forth generalized examples. In this mode of thinking we occasionally observe a philosophical threshold.

To agree or disagree with a tradition, norm, or even authority becomes moot in the face of examples. We could continually adhere to what G.W.F. Hegel hoped for—a historical progression and spiritual notion that raises human consciousness, so that it eventually knows itself and steps ever higher into its transitional mode of being.[2] But sometimes I ask: What’s the point? It’s rather daunting and sometimes equally unfeasible to identify this consciousness, or identify where we may be progressing because of the limitations and situations given by our historical horizons—what Fredric Jameson once referred to as situatedness.[3]

Our inability to see beyond the horizons in our era could be blamed on something like the mass-media corporations that now take precedence. There may be a new historical trend if you wish to call it so—a highly competitive nature combined with an economic ethos to be the person with the most likes and followers. Whether it be a political figure, celebrity, everyday entrepreneur or an overtly secretive mode of surveillance makes no difference.

Agenda or not, something or someone stands before us and performs their acts. 

Some have the largest voice, and some have the most voices following them; we can’t say either is best or worst.

They just are.

There’s no need to extensively go into it, but might I suggest that Hannah Arendt was onto something.[4]

What Arendt seemed to be getting at was a theory for our historical and philosophical judgments through a kind of spectatorship—a theory that empowers anyone to make an assessment. Centuries ago the ability to conduct proper spectatorships could only be qualified morally, through a certain kind of propriety. Adam Smith once said an impartial spectator[5] could harness the ability to tend to one’s passions and sympathize through impartiality while observing the daily events and affairs of man. Arendt suggests that there is an imaginative component and contended that we could do so through our ability to put ourselves into a proper mode of spectator (theatai),[6] the originally theatrical and contemplative mode by which we can achieve a bridge between our thoughts and activities. In the spirit of Kant’s hopes for an eventual coming of age of man—the Enlightenment—such would be a philosophy conducted by anyone, including by the common man.[7]

If we are, therefore, to look at history and ourselves, we must do so through a consideration of spectators. Spectators redeemed eternal reoccurring patterns. However, we must not get confused with what may be happening. What we may think is reoccurring and returning could be a substitute for something else. Indeed, these days, social commentators are all over the place.

What the following essays will attempt to do, however, is to present actors within our historical and contemporary context, at the standpoint of the turn of a twenty-first century. We shall artistically and interpretively think of these societal actors, persons, ideas, authoritative activities, and otherwise as spectators. Being spectators ourselves, we shall add our own contemplation, imagination, and speculation. We can position them among a history of man’s thought. If we set back upon each other in this way, it is possible to pose some great philosophical positions, or at least posit a possibility of interaction between societal actors, spectators, and the thoughts that arise among these events.  

This isn’t an attempt to defame or dethrone any specific celebrity, politician, or leader, but to look at events and note where a philosophical threshold rises. The spectator—whoever and whatever he is—knowingly or not, enlightens us about something. There isn’t a reason to specifically address a musical artist or to debate specific issues such as mass shootings, racial injustices, or gun control until we reach a general philosophical threshold that lends an overarching exemplified activity, an activity we no doubt all seem to be immersed in. I don’t think it’s plausible to contend with a specific social media platform without looking at further examples of how we treat our face, or how we seem to act, criticize, and authorize one another’s behavior and thoughts. Examples in popular culture provide spectatorships for us also.  I wouldn’t be honest unless I tried to occasionally become a spectator and conduct my own observations here and there. I’m in no way saying my spectatorship has earned a special propriety or objectivity, or could I ever be a complete expert in any of this.

So let’s pick up where others have historically left off.

2

Kanye’s Trap Door Theory

It was a press conference and a memorable event—a spectacle to say the least. Kanye West visited the White House. Controversial media attention surrounded and swarmed that day. Numerous topics, outlandish behavior, and thought-provoking reactions may be a nice way of summing up Kanye’s antics. Celebrities who know him often react by saying, This is just Kanye. This is how he gets sometimes. It isn’t suggested that we analyze every topic mentioned that day because some things simply do not make complete sense. Although Kanye’s visit was deemed, shall we say, less than standard behavior, special considerations need to be brought forth.

There were several nuances, and, believe it or not, some interesting and thoughtful points made.

It’s never a good idea to give anyone full credit for their actions. In the end, we don’t know the entirety of people’s motives and intentions. Kanye may have wished to provide awareness of specific political issues. Whether or not he spoke correctly, whether or not it could be completely comprehended makes no difference really.

Let’s rethink and reconsider this event philosophically

I would argue that Kanye is known for expressing his thoughts without shame, and within a certain type of courageous mode beyond the mere contemporary rhapsodist.

In this regard he reminds us of the ancient parrhesiast.

The ancient Greeks revered such a person. The notion of parrhesia required a technique that summoned the utmost courage. It was a unique kind of truth-telling, a place where the truth teller was knowingly at the most risk.

Just like Kanye’s antics that day, the parrhesiast may be tough to define. 

The parrhesiast was not a teacher. He did not guide anyone into a particular form of knowledge or wisdom. The parrhesiast never actually had any sort of methodology, either. The mode of parrhesia is not a profession or skill.[8] This person simply spoke poignantly and asserted an unbridled truth at the most risky moment, and at the risk of his own demise and injury. The parrhesiast was obligated to speak truth to power in a somewhat violent, charismatic rhetorical montage that presents truth abruptly. This person knows the risk, not only of the power he or she is speaking to and the action that could be taken, but the possible detriment to everyone else if the truth is not told. More to the point is how parrhesia isn’t fully classified as speech or rhetoric; in fact, it is a technique that counter balances[9] the ebbs, flows, and structures of speeches. It disrupts the prestigious facades of rhetorical displays. For some reason, the ancient Greeks applauded the parrhesiast, not because it was helpful to leadership and not exactly because it was a brave act.

Kanye seems to be more than an apparent parrhesiast once we take a closer look. It was not only to the detriment of his character and reputation, or the commercial products that he promoted, but also to the complete disruption of the press conference and the prestigious tradition of the Oval Office was at stake.

Or was it?

The parrhesiast is usually affixed in a discussion between him and another individual. He is someone who takes the risk and speaks abruptly to someone else. So, to whom was Kanye really talking to that day? Was he placing himself into the mode of parrhesia and, thereby, addressing President Trump? Or was he abruptly disrupting the flow and structures of mass media? The entire White House press corps was in that room that day. Was he talking to the American people? To whom was he talking?

I sometimes wonder if anyone deserves this much credit.

Regardless, whether he intended to or not, if we thoroughly reflect upon these events, Kanye may be providing us with a new perspective. Kanye as a spectator is more than social commentator; he is initiating a new technique of truth gathering for us. At the turn of a new century, corporations, celebrities, moguls, athletes, stars, artists, and the leaders of the free world sit in front of us. This event, if interpreted correctly, may be a new philosophical moment of convergence where "there is a tendency for the mode of truth-telling characteristic of wisdom and the mode of truth-telling characteristic of parrhesia to come together in a sort of philosophical modality of truth-telling."[10] For the first time in recent American history, the facades, decorum, and pomp of press conferencing may have been transformed into an abrupt and discombobulated truth-telling event.

Let’s go with it.

Let’s proceed on this assumption for a moment.

With this in mind we ask: So what was Kanye saying that day?

Answering this question will get us past Kanye and offer a glimpse into a grand historical and philosophical contradiction playing itself out.

Right there, in that moment, was Kanye, the person, the persona, trying to represent concepts and causes as a citizen of a country? For the most part, he was there in support of a cause regarding prisoners. And the person to whom he was speaking—was he The President, a representational persona of a branch of government that governs and serves the citizenry, or was he a person whose name was formally used as a brand? There they sat, face to face in a press conference full of multimedia corporate conglomerates existing and talking as personas and persons also. Once past the controversial statements, the awkward, and the absurd, some things were said that should make us pause and think.

One specific topic resonated with me that day, other than the statement about being a reincarnated J. Edgar Hoover, of course.

It was when Kanye said the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution acts like a trap door. Now, let us factor out the possibility that Kanye could very well have had a delusional thought that he was physically sitting on a trapdoor across the table from an Austin Powers or James Bond villain. What happened that day, if listeners were setting aside the outlandish remarks, was