Imperialism and Pop Culture — Peter Suderman Interviews Me

imagesI recently had an article in the print edition of Reason on Justin Hart’s Empire of Idea, a book about America’s efforts to influence world opinion. Peter Suderman interview me for a profile to run beside the article…but of course, I was over verbose, so most of my responses got cut. Peter, though, has kindly gave me permission to run the whole thing here instead.

Peter Suderman: What makes America so susceptible to foreign policy blunders?

NB: I think America’s tendency to stumble into foreign policy quagmires probably has a lot to do with the fact that we’re just everywhere. We’ve got a finger in every pie (and/or a foot on every neck, if you want to be more confrontational about it.) I think there’s just a
very strong ideological commitment to leading the world/solving all the world’s problems, which is partially expressed through spending tons and tons and tons of money on weapons — and once you’ve got all those weapons, there’s a huge incentive to use them, which reinforces the ideology, and you buy more weapons, and on and on and on.

PS: Do you think there’s a disconnect between U.S. policy/government elites and less-well-connected citizens when it comes to foreign policy? Or are they basically in sync?

NB: There are obviously a lot of Americans, of all walks of life, who enjoy the image of the United States as a superpower, and who identify with the US projection of power. On the other hand, there’s also a substantial number of folks who want us to be doing less. Obama won the Democratic primary basically as the less-imperialism candidate. But then, of course, in office, he’s projected force as enthusiastically, if thank God less incompetently, than his predecessor. So…I’d say that elites are more unified in their support for imperial adventures. Those adventures draw at least occasional substantial opposition from the public, but that opposition seems difficult to translate into elite action (except in cases of transparent policy failure, like Iraq).

PS: You’ve written an awful lot about pop-culture. Does pop-culture contribute in important ways to how America sees itself in the world? Are there particularly relevant, insightful pop culture portrayals of America’s foreign policy outlook?

NB: I think pop culture both reflects and can contribute to how America sees itself, or what America does. I guess the most obvious recent example of that is 24, which became a touchstone for pro-torture arguments.

I think Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ comic Watchmen is an extremely insightful look at America’s foreign policy. It was written in the 80s, obviously, but it’s still really relevant, I think. It’s about the allure of power and of saving others, about the utilitarian calculus of sacrifice that goes along with it, and about the way that that utilitarian calculus ultimately founders on the fact that no power is ever enough power, and that, however many bombs you have, the future really isn’t under your control. Ozymadnias’ piles and piles of dead bodies are meant to be a sacrifice on the altar of the new future — but the book strongly suggests that they are, really, just piles and piles of dead bodies. The fact that it’s the liberal one-worlder who turns out to be the mass murderer while the right-wing fascist nutball is repulsed by the violence is a nice reminder that imperialism can be centrist as well as extremist .

PS: What do you think America could have done to avoid being linked with
European colonialism? Or was that linkage inevitable?

NB: America has long had an isolationist strain; it seems at least possible that that could have had more of an influence than it did. Counterfactuals are hard to figure, though.

Reason ran a photo of me with the article as well…but looking at it again, I don’t think I can bear to reprint it. It’s just hard to avoid looking willfully smug in author photos, I guess. So if you want to see my shame, you’ll just have to pick up that issue of Reason.

Utilitarian Review 3/8/13

News

Tom Spurgeon reports that Kim Thompson has been diagnosed with cancer. I had my first online troll battle (via email) with Kim way back when. I hope he beats this thing and is around for many more. You can find the address to send well wishes at the link.
 
On HU

Featured Archive Post: Jog on Alan Moore and his collaborators.

Me on Darkest America, a book about the black blackface tradition.

Me on Nate Silver and the morality of prediction.

Alex Buchet on the cartoons of bandleader Xavier Cugat.

Kailyn Kent on gallery art and comic book splash pages.

We started organizing our upcoming music roundtable.

I argue that film Boromir is better than book Boromir.

Domingos Isabelinho on Jochen Gernet. Watch Betty and Veronica race to the war!

Jacob Canfield on poetry about the Legion of Super-Heroes.

Our Friday music sharing post, featuring Brooke Valentin’s The Thrill of the Chase.

 
Utilitarians Everywhere

At the Atlantic:

— I talk about Julia Stiles’ YouTube series Blue, and the obsession with the secret lives of prostitutes.

— I review the Suuns new album — indie rock for the state fair.

— I review the documentary It’s a Girl, about sex selective abortion in China and India.

At Splice

— I argue that if you’re not going to moderate comments, you should just get rid of them.

— I review Tweet’s lovely new ep.

images

 
Other Links

Slate on Shirley Jackson.

C.T. May on Isaac Hayes and the alternative minimum tax.

Felix Salmon tells internet freelancers to abandon all hope.

Molly Westerman on how her son fell in love with a girly book series.

The Producer of the film It’s a Girl responds to my review.
 
This Week’s Reading

I finished Anne Bronte’s Tenant of Wildfell Hall (which was a bit disappointing.) Read Christine Yano’s Pink Globalization about Hello Kitty’s global reach for a review. Started Stephenie Meyer’s The Host, also hopefully for a review.
 

Music Roundtable Brainstorm

steely-dan-album-C_jpg_600x1000_q85

 
So, as I mentioned in comments the other day, I’m thinking it would be fun to do a music roundtable here at HU. I haven’t been exactly sure what topic to have us round upon, though, so I thought I’d throw out a few ideas and see if anyone liked them, and/or had ideas of their own.

So here are some possibilities:

— we could do a roundtable in which everyone writes about their favorite album. The advantage is that it makes participation easy. Disadvantage is that it’ll be fairly diffuse…and maybe just too conventional.

— we could try to pick a particular band or group or something to focus on. Steely Dan? The Beatles? Problem is that it might be hard to find something a quorum wants to write about…and also could seem somewhat random.

— we could pick a year and have everyone write about music from that year. I kind of like this idea. It would give enough range that lots of people could participate, but maybe enough focus that there’s be something to talk about. We’d have to figure out what year to talk about, obviously (I’m thinking about 1991 or 1992 for some reason…but obviously other suggestions would be welcome.)

— we could write about a genre…I’d kind of love to do a metal roundtable, but I don’t know that anyone else would (except Bert, of course….and actually I do know a couple of other people…hmmm. Maybe a small roundtable on metal would be fun….)

— Brian Cremins suggested everybody writing on their favorite album from when they were 10 (I think?) I’m a little leery of that I guess because I feel like I don’t necessarily want to determine that all the responses would be personal beforehand…though I guess if there’s a huge enthusiasm for it maybe I could go along.

Sooo…let me know if any of those sound appealing, of if you’ve got other ideas.

Nate Silver and the Morality of Prediction

This first ran on Splice Today.
___________

Nate Silver’s The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail — But Some Don’t appears, at first glance, to be a guide to better wonkitude.  In fact, though, it’s something of considerably more interest — an argument for how and why predictions are central to creating a better world.  The good is predicated upon good prediction — which means that (though Silver never explicitly says as much) forecasting is not just a skill, but is a moral act.  The Signal and the Noise, then, somewhat surprisingly, is as much a guide to ethics as a guide to statistics — or, perhaps more accurately, is a guide which suggests that you cannot do ethics without statistics, and vice versa.
 

rsz_nate_silver_large

Silver is best known for his political prediction site, fivethirtyeight, which has become legendary over the last four years for its success in calling Presidential and Senate elections.   He’s also well known for using baseball statistics to predict player performance, and or his moderate success as an online poker player.  Silver spends time discussing all of these endeavors, None of these endeavors seem to have much of a moral content — but Silver’s book also focuses on other venues for prediction where the virtue of getting things right translates more easily into virtue, period.  Predicting hurricanes, earthquakes, or terrorist attacks all have obvious and large scale effects on many, many people. Similarly, evaluating the probability of climate change is hugely important for just about everyone on the planet.

How, then, can we improve predictions?  Silver offers a number of suggestions — but the most important boil down, perhaps, to a willingness to acknowledge how hard it is to improve predictions.  Silver divides forecasters into two groups: hedgehogs and foxes.  Hedgehogs for Silver are people with a single big idea, which they stick to tenaciously. Foxes, on the other hand, are uncertain, eclectic, and willing to change their minds.  Hedgehogs have grand theories; foxes limited hypothesis.  Hedgehogs believe in their models; foxes don’t trust theirs.  Hedgehogs pronounce and then confidently demonstrate how the data fit their pronouncements; foxes look at the data first, and then, cautiously and with many reservations, try to see if there is a pattern.

Hedgehogs, Silver argues, are more likely to be interviewed on talk shows or get quoted in the press, because they’re the ones likely to make shocking and exciting predictions that garner big headlines. You’re more likely to sell books if you declaim that the US will definitely face a major flu pandemic in the next 10 years which will kill millions.  But you’re more likely to be right if our claims are less ostentatious and more foxy — if you admit, for example, that flu pandemics are hard to predict, and that the likelihood of a deadly outbreak is tricky to measure with certainty, which is why (as Silver reports) many flu scares in the past have failed to pan out.

Foxes, Silver says, need in particular to acknowledge and understand their own biases.  The idea here is adamantly not to eliminate biases, which Silver suggests is impossible, and probably not even desirable. Instead, it’s to make explicit where the forecaster is coming from — to figure out what the forecaster is assuming (based on common sense, expert knowledge, rules of thumb, or even rank ideology) before she makes her prediction.

This is in part why Silver (and most other statisticians) advocate Bayesian reasoning. In Bayesian reasoning, a forecaster begins by stating her own estimate of an events probability, and then adjusting that probability on the basis of subsequent evidence and events.  Bayesian reasoning, in other words, forces a forecaster to admit to her own prior biases, and then test those biases against what actually happens.

To be a foxy Bayesian, then, is to be possessed of humility and honesty — particularly self-honesty.  These are obviously important virtues in most moral systems, and Silver is entirely convincing when he claims that they are vital to the art of prediction.

A funny thing happens, though, when humility and honesty are instrumentalized as part of the predictive process.  Specifically, it ceases to be clear that humility is humility, that honesty is honesty, or that either are particularly virtuous.  Thus, for example, Silver’s enumeration of the virtues of foxes is pretty clearly an enumeration of his own virtues — he is the fox, pointing out the flaws in all those arrogant hedgehogs.  This isn’t necessarily a problem for his arguments per se — but it does give that section of  the book an unpleasant air of self-vaunting.

More consequential, perhaps, is Silver’s discussion of  the great poker player Tom Dwan.  Silver is clearly extremely impressed with Dwan, and singles him out as an exceptionally good poker player — which means, specifically, an exceptionally honest one.  Dwan “profits,” Silver says, “because his opponents are too sure of themselves.”  Dwan, on the other hand, is great in large part because he knows how great he isn’t.  “‘Poker is all about people who think they’re favorites when they’re not,'” Silver quotes Dwan as saying.  “‘People can have some pretty deluded views on poker.'”

So, again, Dwan’s strengths are the virtues of honesty and humility — and he uses those virtues to make a living by preying on the weak.  Silver explains that the weakest players in poker support all those above them in the pecking order.  If you’re making money in poker, it’s almost certainly because there are people in the game who don’t know what they’re doing — who think they are far better than they are, who are deluding themselves, who don’t know how to play.  Dwan’s virtues — and Silver’s, when he was playing poker professionally — allow them to make rational predictions, and thereby to systematically take advantage of the less virtuous/clever.  Improving predictions here seems less like a way to improve the lot of humankind, and more like a way to create a more perfectly rapacious capitalism.

“Presuming you are a betting man, as I am,” Silver writes at one point, “what good is a prediction if you aren’t willing to put money on it?” It’s a telling formulation, seamlessly linking money, predictions, and goodness.  For Silver, the sign of virtue and value is money — the marker of success.  Honesty and humility are worthwhile because they lead to results — and you can measure those results best through cash.

The problem here is not that Silver is wrong.  On the contrary, the problem is that he’s right. His moral vision is, for all intents and purposes, the moral vision that matters.  His algorithm — greater virtue -> progress -> good-certified-by-money — is as close to a consensus ethical vision as we’ve got.  Refine our tools, increase our knowledge, improve our lives, if only incrementally.  That’s how modernity works.

It’s certainly an attractive vision, and not one that anyone can oppose categorically.  Who wouldn’t like better foreknowledge of earthquakes or disease outbreaks?  Yet, at the same time, it might be worth remembering that controlling our lives and living a good life are not necessarily the same thing.  They can even, in some cases, be opposed.  A world of foxes is not a heaven if those foxes are all intent on devouring each other.  Silver would be the first to say that we will never know the future.  His solution — and it is a moral solution — is that we should work hard at predicting it just a little better and a little better.  Perhaps, though, in addition to becoming more and more powerful predictors, we might devote some time to thinking about how, in a world where our future is uncertain and our power limited,  we can best treat each other not as foxes or hedgehogs, but as human beings.

Utilitarian Review 3/2/13

8211279009_cca4f2314b_o-1

On HU

Featured Archive Post: Alex Buchet on EC comics, accuracy and morality.

Reading Anna Akhmatova’s poetry as comics.

Reading Paul Celan’s poetry as not comic.

Sudee on Kieron Gillen’s phonogram and the power of britpop.

Sean Michael Robinson on why Downton Abbey isn’t very good.

Robert Jones, Jr. explains why he is no longer reading mainstream comics.

I talk about Ursula K. Le Guin’s Left Hand of Darkness and a world without imperialism.

Chris Gavaler on Robin Hood and the history of sex abuse in the Catholic Church.

Our weekly music sharing post featuring Horowitz playing Scarlatti.
 
Utilitarians Everywhere

At Slate I reviewed David Wojnarowicz, James Romberger, and Marguerite Van Cook’s amazing graphic novel 7 Miles a Second.

At the Atlantic:

—I talk about She Devil! Forgotten super femme fatale!

—I reviewed Emmylou Harris and Rodney Crowel’s new album and talked about Emmylou’s career as a collaborator.

—I argue that rom coms are crap because Hollywood sucks, not because love has won out over all in our culture.

—I picked Funeral Mist’s White Stone as a track of the day.

At Splice I talked about Destiny’s Child’s awesome Christmas album.

At Splice I talked about Chinese electronica hipsters White+

Last Saturday I got to talk a bit about Wonder Woman at a screening of a documentary about her at Chicago Filmmakers.
 
Other Links

Sharon Marcus defends cats.

Michael Nugent analyzes sexist facebook photos.

TNC on my racist city.

Sarah Carr on the hurdles poor kids face on getting into colleges.

Ashle Fetters on nicknaming your romantic prospects.

Robert Stanley Martin reviews Game Change, which he argues is unfair to Palin.

 
This Week’s Reading

Finished Ursula K. Le Guin’s Left Hand of Darkness and started Anne Bronte’s The Tenant of Wildfell Hall. Oh…I think I failed to mention that last week I read Anna Akhmatova’s poems, translated by D.M. Thomas. Also I watched the Wigs channel’s web series Blue for a review. Oh, right, and still reading the Fellowship of the Ring to my son…though almost done.

World Without Imperialism

Ursula K. Le Guin’s novel The Left Hand of Darkness is best known for its imaginative take on gender — the inhabitants of the planet Gethen (Winter) are human-descended hermaphrodites, who become male or female (depending on their partners) only during a brief mating cycle (called kemmer) every month.

imagesFor Le Guin, though, the ambisexuality of the Gethenians is about much more than just sex. As she says (through the mouth of a Terran-normal human observing the Gethenians,) the structure of the kemmer cycle rules the Gethenians; all their stories and culture is focused on it. This, she says, is relatively easy for outsiders to understand. But

What is very hard for us to understand is that four-fifths of the time, these people are not sexually motivated at all…. Consider: Anyone can turn his hand to anything. This sounds very simple, but its psychological effects are incalculable…. Consider: A child has no psycho-sexual relationship to his mother and father. There is no myth of Oedipus on Winter….. Consider: There is no unconsenting sex, no rape.

Gethenians, Le Guin goes on to make clear in the rest of the book, are not ruled by the dualism or binaries which structure our thought. Perhaps in part for that reason, they have no war.

I say “perhaps” here advisedly — Le Guin is careful not to absolutely link the absence of masculinity to the absence of violence. There are other possible reasons for the lack of warfare; Gethen is an extremely cold planet, and its inhabitants are in a constant struggle for survival — their battle against the cold is so all-consuming and fierce that they have had little time to develop large scale states or armies. They do, however, have assassinations, and murders, and torture, and even occasional small battles. During the time of the novel, two Gethenian nations have even gotten large enough and powerful enough that it looks like a border dispute might turn into war.

Still, with all these caveats, the fact remains — the Gethenians don’t have men, they don’t have sexual violence, and perhaps not as a direct result, but not incidentally either, they don’t have glory of arms, and they don’t have war.

The link between gender and violence is subtly emphasized on another level as well. The story of the novel focuses not just on the Gethenians, but on a visitor to their planet. Genly Ai, a Terran man, has come to Gethen as a representative of the Ekumen, a pan-galactic organization of cultural traders, or sharers. Genly has come alone on his mission specifically so that the Gethenians do not feel pressured or afraid of him. The Ekumen seek no control; they completely eschew force. When a world accepts their overtures, they simply open communication and begin exchanging knowledge and technology. It’s like the benevolent Star Trek Federation — if the Federation were completely non-violent.

It’s not just Gethen which does not have war, then — it’s the novel itself. And just as Gethen’s lack of warfare is linked more or less explicitly to the gender of its people, so the lack of warfare in The Left Hand of Darkness seems linked, more or less explicitly, to the fact that its writer is a woman.

The book is, certainly, a kind of feminist response to, or critique of, the way that sci-fi generally represents, or imagines, the meetings of cultures. As I’ve said in a number of posts, for sci-fi the meeting of cultures is very often both violent and explicitly imperialist. In fact, from the War of the Worlds on up, the point of sci-fi often seems to be to dramatize, or rationalize, or displace, imperial narratives of conquest. In The War of the Worlds, or John Christopher’s Tripod Trilogy, or Alun Llewellyn’s The Strange Invaders, contact between different cultures is about conquest, one way or the other. Difference means subjugation or extermination; all binaries are unstable.

Le Guin’s world, again, has no binaries. And yet, the novel about a people with no gender difference is in the end a celebration of difference. This is stated perhaps most explicitly near the end of the novel, when Genly Ai’s Gethenien companion, Estraven, goes into kemmer. The two are traveling across a gigantic frozen ice sheet; there is no one else around. Estraven is driven to mate, but the only one to mate with is Genly Ai. Yet the two do not have sex, and Genly explains why:

For it seemed to me, and I think to him, that it was from that sexual tension between us, admitted now and understood, but not assuaged, that the great and sudden assurance of friendship between us rose: a friendship so much needed by us both in our exile, and already so well proved in the days and nights of our bitter journey, that it might as well be called, now as later, love. But it was from the difference between us, not from the affinities and likenesses, but from the difference, that that love came; and it was itself the bridge, the only bridge, across what divided us.

Difference, then — between races, between genders, between individuals — is not a thing to be erased or denied, but a place to live upon, and the only ground for life and for love.

On the one hand, Le Guin’s alternative to imperialism — basically, love one another — seems too easy, or even glib. The Ekumen is — like that old Federation — simply too good to be true. Certainly, the history of the U.S. seems to caution pretty strongly against believing empires when they say that they are only empiring for the good of those empired.

And Genly Ai himself seems too good by half. His sexual abstention, which gives the pivotal scene above much of its force, seems hard to credit when looked at more than cursorily. He has, supposedly, been on Gethen for more than a year; he’s planning to be there for much longer; he does not seem to be intimate with anyone back on his home planet, or with his colleagues circling in stasis in the ship above. Has he just decided to never have sex again for the rest of his life — or at the least for many years? That’s a bit hard to swallow, especially given the history of imperialism and sexuality on the one hand, and the taboo-less ease of sex in the Gethenien culture on the other. What’s even harder to credit is the fact that throughout the entire book, Genly basically never expresses any sexual desire; not for the Getheniens around him, not for anyone in his past, not looking forward to the future. He is preternaturally continent. Le Guin — like Genly himself — seems to feel that not only gender, but sex, must to be verboten if difference is not to result in violence.

But even with those caveats, Left Hand of Darkness still manages something pretty rare at the time, and I think rare still — a sci-fi cross-cultural friendship which feels both genuinely cross-cultural, and genuinely like friendship. And, the book suggests, one of the greatest gifts of that friendship, or that difference, is to give you a sense of your own difference or individuality. There’s a lovely moment in the book when Genly Ai suddenly sees his own masculinity — his competitiveness, his investment in his own strength, his honor — from the vantage of his relationship with Estraven, as a cultural construct, a burden, even, that he can put down if he chooses. And there is also the moment when we get Estraven’s view of him.

There is a frailty about him. He is all unprotected, exposed, vulnerable, even to his sexual organ, which he must carry always outside himself; but he is strong, unbelievably strong. I am not sure he can keep hauling any longer than I can, but he can haul harder and faster than I — twice as hard…. To match his frailty and strength, he has a spirit easy to despair and quick to defiance: a fierce, impatient courage. This slow, hard crawling work we have been doing these days wears him out in body and will, so that if he were one of my race I should think him a coward, but he is anything but that; he has a ready bravery I have never seen the like of.

This is certainly about Genly Ai in particular, as an individual — but it’s also about his masculinity, which is, in Estraven’s eyes, not foolish or violent, but vulnerable and strong and gallant. Le Guin refuses a story in which the colonizers are evil and must be erased, just as she refuses one in which the colonized are barbarians and must be erased. Rather, she suggests, when you erase the other you erase yourself; what eyes can see you if you poke out everyone else’s eyes? The Left Hand of Darkness may not be convincing in every respect, but it is, at the very least, a useful reminder that difference is the basis, not just of genocide, but of love as well.

Utilitarian Review 2/22/13

On HU

Featured Archive Post Kathryn Van Arondonk on metaness and Fringe.

Me on Ke$ha and the new man of rock (massive comments thread featuring Charles Reece.)

James Romberger interviews Tom Kaczynski.

RM Rhodes on Ted White’s year as editor of Heavy Metal in 1980.

Joy Delyria on how Captain America is real (plus fan art by my son.)

Isaac Butler on reality, torture, and Zero Dark Thirty.

music sharing post featuring Miranda Lambert’s “Me And Your Cigarettes.”
 
Utilitarians Everywhere

At Reason I’ve got a piece on public diplomacy and advertising imperialism.

This week at the Atlantic I wrote about:

Superman, Orson Scott Card, and the KKK.

Star Wars’ timid approach to gender.

—The awesome eco-apocalypse metal of Botanist.

—Boring parenting stories and some that are less boring.

This week at Splice Today I wrote about:

Whatever happened to Brooke Valentine.

—Why liberals should learn to love the sequester. (It’s because we hate America.)

And as a bonus, I join the long list of people who have been trolled by Jpod.
 
Other Links

7 Miles a Second by David Wojnarowicz, James Romberger, and Marguerite Van Cook was at number 5 on the NYT best selling graphic novels list.

Dan Kois on the morality of tilting your seat in an airplane.

Mary McCarthy on how her vagina hates spin class.
 
This Week’s Reading

I reread D.M. Thomas’ “The White Hotel”, which I think I liked even more this time round. (Has anyone ever read anything else by him?) Started Ursula K. Le Guin’s Left Hand of Darkness (also a reread from long ago.)
 

images