VLVL2(14) Misoneism 272-3

[Paul Nightingale]

>From Toby:

> 
> I'm suprised there's been no discussion of the following passage from
> pp272-3:
> 
> [Brock Vond] "was a devotee of the thinking of pioneer criminologist
> Cesare Lombroso(1836-1909)...What really got his attention was the
> Lombrosian concept of 'misoneism.'  Radicals, militants, revolutionaries,
> however they styled themselves, all sinned against this deep organic
> human principle, which Lombroso had named after the Greek for 'hatred of
> anything new.' It operated as a feedback device to keep societies coming
> along safely, coherently. Any sudden attempt to change would be answered
> by an immediate misoneistic backlash, not only from the State but from
> the people themselves -- Nixon's election in '68 seeming to Brock a
> perfect example of this."
> 
> It seems to me that this is important to understanding the forces of
> reaction in this book.  and the forces of reaction in today's world as
> well. Could there be any other way to understand the success (so far) of
> the Bush cabal than misoneism?
> 

Well, let's be honest--discussion of anything has been minimal. I thought it
was my job as host to introduce the chapter. I gave my view of "Brock's
genius" and the part played by the Lombroso passages, both in relation to
Brock as a character and regarding the narrative function of those passages
in the chapter as a whole. Apologies for not writing more at the time.

For Brock, whose "genius" is simply self-serving, there has to be a way to
normalisation, that is to say, to disguise class conflict. Hence the
pendulum-swing he describes (and the passage adopts his pov throughout, so
the text is speaking on his behalf) allows him to invoke human nature to
legitimise reaction. Brock has earlier, of course, described the left's
"unacknowledged desires for" order (269). Again, not a passage avoided like
the plague since my introduction covered it. Here, what "Brock saw" quickly
becomes "[the] hunch he was betting on": certainty into a hopeful gamble. He
proclaims himself superior to those, "most viewers", who have fallen for the
Tube's version. What is interesting is the way the left, "the youth
revolution", is transformed between passages: in the first, they don't
really want change, but in the latter they represent that which the rest of
society (a silent majority, perhaps) have rejected. Similarly, in the first
passage, "most viewers" are mistaken, they lack Brock's insights; in the
second passage, "most viewers" must be "the people themselves" whose choice
of Nixon is celebrated by Brock.

What is clear from these passages is Brock's need to justify to himself his
status as observer of/commentator on the contemporary scene. What is also
apparent is that the text consistently undermines his certainty and exposes
his thinking/reasoning as both partial and self-serving. The question then
becomes, what narrative function is served by such passages? For example,
the reference to Nixon's election (273) 'proves' Brock's theory. Within the
context of this particular chapter, however, one might consider other
aspects of Nixon's election. Other ways of describing it might highlight the
so-called meritocratic success of a social climber (for example, one of
Coover's starting points in The Public Burning). Here, Nixon becomes the
whiz-kid provincial who likes, or wants, to think he has outsmarted the East
Coast/Ivy League establishment: Yes, given his own aspirations, Brock would
select such a role model.

On the power elite, and the way Republican Presidents have tried to
represent themselves as populists ... an article by Tom Frank in February's
Le Monde Diplomatique. It reminded me of the p-list discussion (circa 1984
Foreword, I think) of Bush's stupidity. I challenged the too-hasty dismissal
of him then, and Frank's article is worth reading in that context, and also
in the context of VL, I think.

And on a related matter ... Thompson published The Making of the English
Working Class some 40 years ago, so one has to be pretty ignorant of
contemporary history to call Luddism "reactionary": it might also be a good
idea to read Pynchon's essay, which is Thompsonesque in character. Pynchon's
early-80s texts do mark a new interest in class and narrative, the writing
of history, that he explored further in VL (and then M&D and the 1984
Foreword, of course).