Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 14:01:03 +0100 From: James Heartfield <James-AT-heartfield.demon.co.uk> Subject: M-I: A time to Di -- The Floral Revolution In message <3.0.16.19970911132853.35a7ff2c-AT-pop.qut.edu.au>, Gary MacLennan <g.maclennan-AT-qut.edu.au> writes >My own impressions are that the Windsor as a unit were weakened by their >failure to spot the Di phenomenon and head it off. Their reactions were in >their own terms extraordinary but ultimately they failed to satisfy. Yet I >too like Hugh thought that the queen's broadcast was excepttionally >professional. Blair's delivery of the Corinthians was also very polished >and that is the weak point. The people were after more than polish. The >poor things actually wanted sincerity. Neither Blair nor the Queen could >ever give them that. However they got it aplenty from the brother and that >is why I think Hugh is very wrong about his speech. > >I was also very moved by Elton John's song. I know it was all saccharine >rubbish but this was a real moment of gay culture. Straight people have to >try and understand that the gay experience is lived very much on the edge >and at the margins and Elton John both embodied this and paid tribute to >that aspect of the Di persona. Gary's response, like Chris's to the Di phenomenon is not as uncommon as those outside Britain might think, but I say it is a misconception. The knee-jerk left response is one down, nine to go. And as it happens, that's a pretty respectable position. The Bolsheviks did the right thing when they put the Tsar and his family up against a wall - all the better if they put themselves up against a wall. But what that response does not take into account is the question of popular consciousness, and the unconventional edge of the Di phenomenon, that Gary and Chris both highlight. All the same, I think they are wrong to take the supposedly positive aspects of the affair on face value. In fact it is precisely those superficially positive aspects that are the problem. If this was Mountbatten's funeral again, formal, stuffy, hierarchical it would not be much of a problem. It would only succeed in touching those more backward elements of the middle and working classes, and older people. But Diana's funeral rejuvenated the monarchy. Chris and Gary both point out that the House of Windsor was criticised. But the very fact of criticising the old-fashioned end of the monarchy only redirects popular disaffection with it, into support for another branch of the old firm. Yes, the Queen was criticised. But when she bent to that criticism, her standing was enormously boosted. And at what cost - to fly a flag at half mast. Those who are fortunate enough to live in republics should bot underestimate the grotesque servility at the heart of monarchism. It affords me no comfort that the future king Billy will ascend to the throne with an aura of tragedy arising from his mother's death, that wil elevate him beyond reproach. Chris and Gary take heart from the dissing of the Queen in favour of the younger members of her brood. I don't. The whole point about monarchy is that it is rejuvenated; that one generation replaces another, but the insitution of subjugation goes on for ever. In particular I think Gary is plain wrong about the sentiments expressed in the funeral. At the risk of being misunderstood, I would say that Elton John's contribution sums up what is wrong with the mood expressed in the Di phenomenon. For two weeks now we have had to listen to a harangue from every press and TV pundit about how important it is to grieve and to grieve openly; how Prince Charles' perceived coldness towards his children is tantamount to child abuse. People in their tens of thousands stood to applaud Earl Spencer in Westminster Abbey when he started lecturing the royal family about the emotional well-being of Harry and Wills, effectively making a plea for emotional custody on national television. the apex of this mawkish emotionalism was Elton John's rewrite of Candle in the wind. I'm sorry but I actually prefer the Charles' stiff upper lip and English reserve. This is the politics of sensation and emotion. It is about the supression of your critical faculties in favour of your heart. Above all this kind of emotional politics is not generous and loving as it purports to be. On the contrary. It is judgemental and unforgiving. Anyone who steps out of line in the Di-fest gets pilloried with abuse. The Scottish Football manager was only the first to be turned on. The paparazzi were denounced. In Hampshire police are hunting someone who wrote his protest in the book of condolences. I have no sympathy for the Windsors, but think: If people as powerful as them have to bow to this tide of moralism and emotionalism, what chance do any one of the rest of us stand against it? In fact this heavily personalised emotionalism is the symbolic politics that royalty has traded in since Disraeli crowned Victoria Empress of India. The idea is (as Walter Bagehot explains in The English Constitution) that us ordinary plebs are to ignorant to understand the real affairs of state, because they are abstract and impersonal, so we need to personalise them in the form of our own royal soap opera. Finally, the fact that the funeral elevated the New Labour elite and its hangers-on, the charity workers and media luvvies, instead of the old fashioned honour-guard of military and dignitaries does not represent a positive step forward for working class people. It just represents the replacement of an old elite by a new one. The new elite might well be a bit more pro-gay than the old one, but it is just as intolerant and repressive of anyone who stand against it. ---------- PS on Hitler's Willing Executioners I guess the vote will have to be called off due to lack of interest, so I formally swear off contributing to that thread. Many thanks to all concerned for a fascinating debate. -- James Heartfield --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005