File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1997/marxism-general.9709, message 8


Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 16:33:05 +0100
From: Chris Burford <cburford-AT-gn.apc.org>
Subject: M-G: The heart of a heartless world


My favourite opponent, Hugh, has expected me to gush. And he was right that
I have wanted to post something since Sunday, but was trying to prepare
something for marxism-psych.

Anyway Hugh has not been too continent himself. and the gush of witty and
cynical remarks are partly a commentary on the reaction to Diana's death
and partly it seems to me an expression of a sense of anger.

Where Hugh is wrong is in putting himself outside the range of public
opinion in the name of marxism. True, here is much hype, much hypcrisy and
not a little kitsch, in the public responses. And the rapidly amplifying
effects of instant media reporting have created an avalanche of reaction
which is a new stage in global culture. But it is not all kitsch and hype.

Diana Spencer was a complicated individual psychologically and socially,
but she played a role instinctively that shifted something in global
culture because of her intuitive response to modern communications
technology. Starting off as a fairy tale it ended as a Greek tragedy, said
one commentator. Judging from the reports about the photographers at the
scene of her death, it ended as a Fellini film. (How many film versions of
her life can we expect? And by which directors?) 

She flew too close to the sun. She felt driven to meet too many projections
from too many people, and did it too well. Starting off as a callow Sloane
ranger, she became a patient of a modern, anglo-american psychotherapist,
Susie Orbach, and had the psychological strength to cap Charles's tv
interview, take on the Royal Family fighting, and win.

Yesterday telephone calls obliged Windsor Castle to lower its flag to half
mast in honour for someone who had left the Royal Family. On Saturday
Charles will have to go through the most humiliating experience of his
life, because of public opinion, because Blair insisted on a state funeral
for "the people's princess".

Diana was both Diana and Actaeon, the Goddess of Hunting and the hunted.
Her seductiveness was in her vulnerability. And here she was subtly
difference from Lady Bountiful: rich, privileged and self indulgent, the
message nevertheless was not that the people should graciously accept
charity, but that we are all vulnerable. She had suffered from a disgusting
and humiliating mental disorder; she had tried to kill herself; she needed
to be touched, like she argued that HIV victims needed to be touched. 

Whom the gods love, die young, and she has all the makings of an icon. We
can smirk. We can use our marxism to sneer. Or we can use our marxism to
understand and to describe what is happening underneath so that we can
unite with the democratic impulse of the people.

Diana is becoming an icon in a pluralist theology. It transcends formal
religions. It has been created by the conditions of late 20th century
capitalism. She made links across five continents. Her role in global civil
society is good in campaigning against landmines, and may still have a good
role to play in challenging the capitalist ownership and control of
communications. Most subversively she died at the moment she was
contemplating marrying a muslim, despite being the mother of the future
king of England.

She is a sort of divinity in a new secular religion. That divinity to the
extent that it has validity is a reflection of the divinity of the people
who saw something of themselves in her. As marxists we do not have to
respect for idealist reasons a flawed, confused and spoiled 36 year old,
whose life could hardly have gone out at a higher moment. We should respect
the responses of ordinary people. They are our god. 

Every one knows it is futile to leave flowers. They will die too. They will
be buried under other flowers. But they have been left not just in London
but in many other places. A feature of the mourners is their quietness and
dignity, as well as their determination. It is an eidectic display. 

The sigh of the oppressed is being heard. It is a warning. 

"In London last night mourners waiting to sign a book of condolence at St
James's Palace were told that they might have to wait until 4am to add
their name to the list, but even those who had a six-hour wait ahead were
undeterred."

Have I gushed enough, Hugh? 

By all means bring back the allusions to classical polytheism, but without
the cynicism of the patrician, or would be patrician, commentators.

Chris Burford

London.



     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005