The Westerner
Why does the Western movie especially have such a hold on our imagination?
Chiefly, I think, because it offers a serious orientation to the problem of violence such as can be found almost nowhere else in our culture. One of the well-known pecularities of modern civilized opinion is its refusal to acknowledge the value of violence. This refusal is a virtue, but like many virtues it involves a certain willful blindness and it encourages hypocrisy. We train ourselves to be shocked or bored by cultural images of violence, and our very concept of heroism tends to be a passive one: we are less drawn to the brave young men who kill large numbers of our enemies than to the heroic prisoners who endure torture without capitulating. In art, though we may still be able to understand and participate in the values of the Iliad, a modern writer like Ernest Hemingway we find somewhat embarrassing: there is no doubt that he stirs us, but we cannot help recognizing also that he is a little childish. And in the criticism of popular culture, where the educated observer is usually under the illusion that he has nothing at stake, the presence of images of violence is often assumed to be in itself a sufficient reason for condemnation.
-- Robert Warshow, "Movie Chronicle: The Westerner," in The Immediate Experience
Robert Warshow's astute observations of American popular culture still resonate. I came upon this familiar passage the other day, and I was struck by how strongly the tensions described by Warshow inform the current penchant among left-leaning, Europhile commentators to sneer at "Cowboy Bush." After all, those who deride Bush as a "cowboy" are almost certainly referring to the archetypical Cowboy of movie Westerns and not to any real cowboy they may have met in their local street corner cafe, and not even to any historical cowboy. What the sneer-bots (to steal a phrase from James Lileks) are responding to in Bush's persona -- besides the Texas drawl and the laconic manner -- is precisely the "serious orientation to the problem of violence" that Warshow examines. In his rhetoric and in his actions, Bush acknowledges the value of violence, and such an acknowledgement is often an affront to "civilized" opinion, especially to the opinions of those who have learned to chant "violence never solved anything" without bothering to plumb the shallows of the phrase. In movie Westerns, as in real life, violence often solves problems; the man with the gun defends life and property and protects the innocent. What allows the "sophisticated" observer to maintain an ironic distance from this fact, however, is summed up in another of Warshow's brilliant phrases: ". . .the educated observer is usually under the illusion that he has nothing at stake." Let's face it, some of the people who ridicule "Cowboy Bush" are simply sand-poundingly stupid, but some are otherwise intelligent people who are made uncomfortable by a "serious orientation to the problem of violence;" they are people who probably understand, in their heart of hearts, that violence does indeed solve some kinds of problems, but maintaining the illusion of having nothing at stake requires them not to look too closely at the problem. How on earth, one might ask, can anyone maintain the illusion -- post-September 11 -- that they have nothing at stake? Actually, it's probably an all too human reaction, especially among those who were particularly invested in the illusion to begin with. Some people would rather throw things at the television when "Cowboy Bush" speaks than face the truly frightening thought that we all have a great deal at stake here and that all of us will have to undertake a more serious orientation to the problem of violence before it's over.
Chiefly, I think, because it offers a serious orientation to the problem of violence such as can be found almost nowhere else in our culture. One of the well-known pecularities of modern civilized opinion is its refusal to acknowledge the value of violence. This refusal is a virtue, but like many virtues it involves a certain willful blindness and it encourages hypocrisy. We train ourselves to be shocked or bored by cultural images of violence, and our very concept of heroism tends to be a passive one: we are less drawn to the brave young men who kill large numbers of our enemies than to the heroic prisoners who endure torture without capitulating. In art, though we may still be able to understand and participate in the values of the Iliad, a modern writer like Ernest Hemingway we find somewhat embarrassing: there is no doubt that he stirs us, but we cannot help recognizing also that he is a little childish. And in the criticism of popular culture, where the educated observer is usually under the illusion that he has nothing at stake, the presence of images of violence is often assumed to be in itself a sufficient reason for condemnation.
-- Robert Warshow, "Movie Chronicle: The Westerner," in The Immediate Experience
Robert Warshow's astute observations of American popular culture still resonate. I came upon this familiar passage the other day, and I was struck by how strongly the tensions described by Warshow inform the current penchant among left-leaning, Europhile commentators to sneer at "Cowboy Bush." After all, those who deride Bush as a "cowboy" are almost certainly referring to the archetypical Cowboy of movie Westerns and not to any real cowboy they may have met in their local street corner cafe, and not even to any historical cowboy. What the sneer-bots (to steal a phrase from James Lileks) are responding to in Bush's persona -- besides the Texas drawl and the laconic manner -- is precisely the "serious orientation to the problem of violence" that Warshow examines. In his rhetoric and in his actions, Bush acknowledges the value of violence, and such an acknowledgement is often an affront to "civilized" opinion, especially to the opinions of those who have learned to chant "violence never solved anything" without bothering to plumb the shallows of the phrase. In movie Westerns, as in real life, violence often solves problems; the man with the gun defends life and property and protects the innocent. What allows the "sophisticated" observer to maintain an ironic distance from this fact, however, is summed up in another of Warshow's brilliant phrases: ". . .the educated observer is usually under the illusion that he has nothing at stake." Let's face it, some of the people who ridicule "Cowboy Bush" are simply sand-poundingly stupid, but some are otherwise intelligent people who are made uncomfortable by a "serious orientation to the problem of violence;" they are people who probably understand, in their heart of hearts, that violence does indeed solve some kinds of problems, but maintaining the illusion of having nothing at stake requires them not to look too closely at the problem. How on earth, one might ask, can anyone maintain the illusion -- post-September 11 -- that they have nothing at stake? Actually, it's probably an all too human reaction, especially among those who were particularly invested in the illusion to begin with. Some people would rather throw things at the television when "Cowboy Bush" speaks than face the truly frightening thought that we all have a great deal at stake here and that all of us will have to undertake a more serious orientation to the problem of violence before it's over.
posted by Kate Marie | 2:26 AM | Permalink
|
10 comments
10 Comments:
One reason the "educated observer" can continue the illusion of having nothing at stake, of "violence never solved anything," is that the U.S. takes care of the problems for him. As long as WE are strong, Canada, Mexico, and Europe don't have much to worry about, do they? As long as I live where there's a modern, well-equiped (and well armed) police force, I can decry violence and oppose the right to bear arms.
Try telling a freed Iraqi that violence never solved anything.
Exactly, Conservative. I'm not a political scientist, but I think there's even a name for this concept in political science -- "free riders." Look at Europe throughout the Cold War, for instance. European countries, in general, spent only a small amount of their budgets on their own defense, because they relied on the superpower defense capabilities of the U.S. This freed them from the idea that they had anything at stake (except when Reagan reminded them by deploying Pershing missiles in Western Europe) and fueled the juvenile "peace marches" and "peace" movements. The fact that they had less responsibility for their own defense created, in my opinion, all sorts of political dysfunctions, and we're reaping the result of that Cold War situation now. That's why I agree with Victor Davis Hanson that America needs to shift troops around in Europe (from Germany to Poland, for instance) and to encourage Europe to become entirely self-sufficient militarily.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- Courtesy of the Mudville Gazette http://mudvillegazette.com/
Just came upon an excerpt from one of those letters that pretentious British "intellectuals" are sending to voters in Ohio. It kind of illustrates my point about the sneering "Cowboy Bush" talk. From Richard Dawkins:
"Now that all other justifications for the war are known to be lies, the warmongers are thrown back on one, endlessly repeated: the world is a better place without Saddam. No doubt it is. But that's the Tony Martin school of foreign policy [Martin was a householder who shot dead a burglar who had broken into his house in 1999]. It's not how civilised countries, who follow the rule of law, behave. The world would be a better place without George Bush, but that doesn't justify an assassination attempt. The proper way to get rid of that smirking gunslinger is to vote him out."
Need I say more?
Taking it a step further, when talking to the "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place" crowd, I get the real sense that they see themselves as having evolved above us Neanderthals. To be able to rise above human instict and reflex shows everyone around you that you have developed greater powers of intelligence and understanding. "Our kind will survive because of superior thinking skills. Anybody who actually believes that violence can solve (some) problems obviously is relegated to the lower orders". They can regard even defensive or protective violence as unnecessary as a nervous man's sweaty palms (the better to climb trees and escape predators). What seems to be missing is the history lesson of what happened to other societies that thought themselves superior to the human condition. Indeed, what is happening now in certain parts of the world where human emotion, physicality and even friendship are denied. Also missing is the theory of intent. Completely gone, it doesn't matter that someone breaking into your home may have a weapon. They also may not have a weapon and should be given the benfit of the doubt (see also, England). Okay, now I'm rambling and will end this with an observation that this form of denial masks a fear that they may just be wrong about all that which would make them just like us.
- Dirtbiker for W
Great points, dirtbiker. I've often thought that, for many people with whom I have political discussions, what's at the bottom of their opinions is the desire to preserve a certain self-image. Now, of course, that can happen with people who lean conservative as well as liberal, but I tend to run into it far more with the the "liberals" I talk to -- maybe because, for many of my liberal friends, I'm the only conservative they know.
Ah, but those who have "evolved above us Neanderthals" are often the same ones who will suffer, or are suffering, from the Roe Effect.
Hey, thanks for the link, Conservative! I'd never read about the "Roe effect before." Maybe we Neanderthals have a fighting chance.
Post a Comment
<< Home