On snobbishness or using what talent you possess…

[Slightly edited May 6]. Inspired by an article in the local newspaper.

Culture makes man human the author writes. All despite class, sex, ethnicity, shall already from the beginning get an honest chance to practice and acquaint themselves with creative ways of expression; as writing, painting, drawing, acting, filming, playing an instrument and so on. I would add: and be allowed to continue doing this and develop those skills throughout life if she or he wants and feel a joy and lust in it.

If more and more people in new generations (and in the old ones too) dare raising their voices and express themselves, breaking silence, re-establish and rehabilitate a little of their self-esteem a lot is won.

Not pushing people away or thrusting them aside but letting them in. Rather not discourage people when they try to express themselves, no matter how developed their ways of expression are, whether in written words (even in a foreign language) or in artistic expressions. Even if these expressions aren't "perfect." People should be encouraged instead. More people should raise their voices.

And, once again, it's by training you become more and more skillful in what you are doing, depending what your starting point was.

Yes, no matter what voice a person has she or he should be encouraged to use it. Not discouraged.

You can use your language in all those expressions as a way of excluding other people (for instance in the way you use language and how you resonate about it and how you react to other people's imperfect ways of using it).

From where does this snobbishness come?

"Use what talent you possess - the woods would be very silent if no birds sang except those that sang best"

(Henry van Dyke).

Medial dictatorship or societal approval – the spirit of the time as a devastating weapon, shit tastes well…

one of the participants in the Swedish version of Big Brother.

A female Swedish journalist Maria-Pia Boëthius wrote in a chronicle yesterday about humiliation and mobbing programmes on TV, programmes that are very popular today. These programmes (or their critics?) had been up in a debate programme on Swedish TV recently.

The basic idea and conclusion from the programme leader, Janne Josefsson, was that people criticizing those programmes also allege that people watching them are stupid. These programmes have many viewers and all people can't be wrong.

In a way Josefsson puts himself in a loyalty situation with the ones who watch those programmes and what he did was stirring people up against the snobbish critics she thinks.

Boëthius writes that she has seen those programmes at least once, but has had to tie herself up to her TV-sofa, and the watching was a prolonged torture. I agree with her, I have felt tormented when I have been forced to see them, when I for instance have been visitor in other peoples’ houses and they have watched them.

She quotes a Spanish author who said something in the style:

“Maybe you aren’t only guilty to what you are doing, but also to what you are listening to, what you see and read.”

But maybe one needs to see to be able to judge and condemn?

Exactly so, Boëthius writes, we live in a viewership’s dictatorship; each programme with a lot of watchers is per definition “good”, just because it gets a lot of viewers. In what way, one can’t help wondering? she writes. Yes, they are good because they get a lot of viewers.

But this logic doesn’t hold, she thinks, and comes to think of the device

“Hundred millions flies can’t be wrong. Shit tastes well!”

I am perfectly convinced that a lot of intelligent people are watching idiotic programmes and that it’s not possible drawing equal signs between “watching shit-programmes” and being “unintelligent” she writes.

The spirit of the time allows those programmes, so people are watching programmes where people in the purpose of entertainment are humiliating themselves and/or bullying each other.

Similar spirit of times have occurred during history, where millions of people watched and enjoyed things we regard as horrible and worth condemning: public executions, the Nazi mass meetings, lynching etc.

Were all those spectators, who let themselves be drawn with and entertained, stupid?

Are the Swedes watching those programmes some day going to regret that they “made themselves guilty of” watching humiliation-TV? Maybe they will realize that those programmes are a sort of propaganda for a loathsome outlook on man?

In those times civil courage is demanded, from for example people like Josefsson, she thinks. Either you can put yourself on the side of the viewers by exhibiting the critics of the misery as “snobs”, by this legitimizing even more programmes of this type, or by standing up and saying that this is humiliating and dangerous for us all; producers as well as viewers.

I am totally sure that if one decided to send an American execution with poison directly on TV one would get more viewers than any previous programme before she writes. Does this mean that this is a “good” programme?

According to the logic of Josefsson the answer is “yes”. Because a billion people or something like that would choose watching, the ones criticizing the programme are despisers of man, according to the Josefsson vocabulary.

The spirit of the time is a devastating weapon.

How big the numbers of watchers even are the programme can be totally objectionable she means. She can hear the objections: you can’t compare those!

Yes, I can, she asserts. Consenting to letting oneself be entertained with humiliation, bullying and expelling, is to humiliate oneself, and maybe that’s the meaning as a matter of fact?

“We are all assholes!”

the producers are chuckling.

But we aren’t she maintains. Thinking independently, walking against the spirit of the time is one of the greatest gifts we have gotten.

It’s a question of daring to take possession of this gift and ability she concludes.

See earlier posting on reality-TV.