SUBSCRIBER LOGIN

Search
First Things

Loading

RSS

Postmodern Conservative
Archive

Categories

Monthly


Blogroll



« Previous  |Home|  Next »         

Saturday, November 19, 2011, 1:41 PM

The Songbook inevitably has to analyze modernity, precisely because it is interested more in what rock reveals about our overall sociological and spiritual situation than it is in rock itself.  So what follows are two organizing posts concerning this.  Here, I’ll quickly lay out my basic propositions about my “three stages of modernity.”  The second post is where I’ll really explain and describe them.

A. I’ll begin by asserting that American society from about 1776 to about WWI was shaped by a mix consisting of a) modernist Lockean/Cartesian principles, and b) various pre-modern inheritances, Christianity particularly.

B. Granting that, for American society there seem to be three main stages:

1) quasi-modernity –approximately 1776 to 1918

2) intermediate modernity –approximately 1919 to 1965

3) full modernity –approximately 1966 to the present

C. What de-moderated our modernity was the sexual/cultural revolution of the 60s: it claimed there was little need any more to restrain ourselves with respect to sex, scarcity, and conformity. It largely won, although a culture war continues, at least in America, to try to restrain it, and to partially return society to some of the codes and decencies taken for granted in the 1950s.

D. It may be that the culture war is better thought of as an effort to move forward, to a yet-to-really-arrive fourth stage, one in which real effort to practice postmodern conservatism will be made by society, doing its best to partially revive lost things, informed by many decades of experiencing the awful consequences of full modernity.

E. The schema is necessarily drawn very sharply. Many qualifications and quibbles can be made. Certain aspects of the timeline differ between the American and British experience of them, which become even larger if we compare these to the French, German, and upper-class Continental Europe experience of them, but broad parallels remain.  Even with respect to the American stages we could quibble about dates, perhaps preferring 1912 to 1918 (so that Progressivism matters more than the war), or 1962 to 1966 (so that the more elite experience of the sexual revolution outweighs the more common one).

F. These are stages in our sociological situation, taking “sociological” in the widest sense. This can remind us of various stages applied to the history of philosophic thought, such as Leo Strauss’s “three waves of modernity,” but that sort of analysis is not what we’re seeking to do here.  Rather, we want to consider the sociological stages as experienced by the larger culture, without saying with any certainty which thinkers have the most responsibility for them. The emphasis is thus not upon modernity as experienced by intellectuals, but as experienced by society as a whole.  My more sociological stages of modernity DO NOT necessarily parallel Strauss’s intellectual waves of modernity.  And there are reasons, as we will see as the Songbook unfolds, why I am reluctant to part with the term “modernity,” despite the confusion with Strauss’s schema this invites.  For one, when the Modern Lovers talk about the “Modern World,” I want to tie songs like that to my sort of analysis.

****************************************************************************************
My immediate motive for providing this schema was prompted by a difficulty concerning Simon and Garfunkel’s “Sounds of Silence,” but as mentioned above, the larger motive comes from the nature of the Songbook project itself. The Songbook proposed, you may recall, that one of the potentially redeeming features of rock artistry is its attempt to resist or at least bear witness to the destructive pull of modernity. Insofar as modern life becomes dehumanizing and isolating, rock has sung about this, tried to carve out artistic refuge from it, or otherwise sought to explore how one must deal with it. At its best, this is what rock has attempted.

A problem arises for this proposition, however, from the several stages of modernity. There are many songs that attack modernity in the name of various solutions that, whether they know it or not, are actually intensifications of modernity. Shades of Rousseau and Marx. “Sounds of Silence,” for example, is a song that attacks a feature of modernity, conformist inauthentic speech/reticence, that to some extent spans the entire period of modernity but which seems particularly strong during one stage of it, that of intermediate modernity. Because we have advanced beyond that stage, we have not had reason to be particularly worried about the “silence” the song comments upon, and so the song doesn’t speak to us as powerfully as it did in 1965. Its implicitly recommended remedy, self-expressive authenticity, now seems both less urgently needed and more questionable in itself.  I more fully elucidated these points towards the end of my analysis of the song.

That is but one example of how I see my stages-of-modernity-analysis, and particularly its full vs. intermediate distinction, working with rock. The Songbook will contain many more. Understanding the character of intermediate modernity is in my view key, and that is what the next post will seek to more fulsomely sketch.

5 Comments

    Robert Cheeks
    November 21st, 2011 | 12:50 pm

    Your project didn’t capture me until this blog.

    It strikes me that once you get beyond Dylan and a couple of his epigones (John Prine for example) there is a dearth of interesting or penetrating critiques of modernity.

    You write: “The Songbook inevitably has to analyze modernity, precisely because it is interested more in what rock reveals about our overall sociological and spiritual situation than it is in rock itself.”
    I have always thought that ‘rock’ was deeply committed to the “immanentization” of society in modernity, to the glorification/gratification of the (self)individual in egophanic revolt against God? Which begs the question, is your project an analysis of ‘rock’s’ efforts to define or move modernity, or is rock-in-modernity an eschatology?

    You write, “Insofar as modern life becomes dehumanizing and isolating, rock has sung about this, tried to carve out artistic refuge from it, or otherwise sought to explore how one must deal with it. At its best, this is what rock has attempted.”
    As far as I know, the ‘rock artist’s’ desire to critique, for example, abortion, is nonexistent. Given your theory shouldn’t we at least have a few famous/popular artists ‘protesting’ abortion? Does this failure of rock artists to address the question of abortion represent the final stage of collapse in Christian morals and ethics or, that these ‘values’ are no longer pertinent in a society that has become almost completely immanentized?

    BTW, I’m sure Voegelin would have been very much impressed with your ‘stages of modernity’ analysis.

    Carl Eric Scott
    November 21st, 2011 | 10:14 pm

    Robert, thanks…if you say Voegelin would be impressed, that’s very encouraging! All I really am doing is trying to remain true to the fact that most of the good cultural and social historians I know of say that something changes big-time somewhere around 1890-1925; and likewise say so regarding 1960s/1970s.

    My semi-quasi-sort-of defense of some rock does rest upon this idea of its resistance to modernity, or at least, its trying to make sense of modernity.

    I’m not saying that it usually does such a good job of doing so… …a lot of rock, such as “Sounds of Silence” is like the utterly depressing and navel-gazing parts of a Walker Percy novel, without any of the self-deprecating humor, and without any longing for or pointers toward the Christian hope. But as you’ll see as the Songbook unfolds, there are exceptions. There are bands who realized that the whole hippie/rock “solution” didn’t work…and who even understand the (modernity-rooted) kinship between what rock said it was against and what it turned out to be.

    Robert Cheeks
    November 21st, 2011 | 10:54 pm

    Thanks Carl, actually I’m very much looking forward to your next installment. My own position, biased of course, is that there are few (Dylan being an exception probably predicated on his Jewishness, and only in his “Christian” albums) if any rock artists who were ever aware of the horror of the egophanic revolt, the movement away from God, that their music represents.
    However, with that said, your inquiry is singularly important and invites a critique of its own. It should be presented in book form, of course.

    Carl’s Rock Songbook #28: Intermediate Modernity » Postmodern Conservative | A First Things Blog
    November 23rd, 2011 | 11:04 am

    [...] Here’s the basic schema I laid out in #26: [...]

    Revolution’s Year Zero: 1962, 1966, or 1968? » Postmodern Conservative | A First Things Blog
    July 21st, 2012 | 10:15 am

    [...] understand that second point particularly if they read my cinema-and-song-studded posts on Three Stages of Modernity and Intermediate Modernity. The framework I provide in those essays allow one to admit the [...]


Leave a Comment