David Chapman has written about the cultural atomisation you speak of here, if you're interested, in particular referring to Gangnam Style, the epitome of the genreless: https://meaningness.com/atomized-mode
I do disagree that it's not possible to define a cultural "decline". As you say, history is not linear, but it *is* cyclical. As societies decline thermodynamically, they tend to enter a chaotic interregnum such as this, as I describe in this section in my essay here: https://jakehpark.substack.com/i/163082944/collapse
Nero, Caligula, Commodus were noticeably worse than preceding emperors, much in the same way that Trump is distinctly worse now—not necessarily because of anything he's done (other presidents have killed far more), but because of the cultural capitulation he represents.
As Han details in *The Agony of Eros*, the culture of pornographic mass production flattens the Other into the Same, and annihilates the alterity that makes Eros possible. It is hard to argue that this isn't a loss.
Thank you for the comment and for the reading recs, I'll definitely take a look! As for the decadence part, I agree, and in the next piece I actually will be looking a bit more closely at the cultural output of late-modernism. Also I'm currently reading a book called The Decadent Society and it makes a similar argument. So yes, I am not optimistic at all.
On a slightly related note, if you've read *Saving Beauty* by Han, I'm curious as to what you think of his characterisation of pornography. I completely agree with his distinction between erotic art and pornography in the sense that pornography captures a *unary subject* that is singularly instrumental and performative, whereas erotic art preserves alterity through maintaining tension, a *punctum*, some asexual quality that characterises the subject and prevents the Other from turning into the Same (he mentions the texture of underwear as an example). Eros is made possible only through negativity, which I understand as an evolutionary basis for intimacy (trust develops only in total vulnerability, and seduction is costly and slow according to the handicap principle); Han argues pornography therefore destroys Eros. In this sense, there is a partial alignment with Dworkin's contention that pornography corrodes the capacity for relation and intimacy—by unidimensionally flattening the Other (unknowable, individual, uncontrollable) into the Same (transparent, instrumental, fungible), one cements the tendency to dehumanise and instrumentalise. But to play devil's advocate, I don't think *all* pornography necessarily destroys Eros: a pornographic film—that is, with the unary function of sexualisation—could be made in such a way that it preserves the subjecthood of the Other. Does transparency, as Han argues, *necessarily* eliminate beauty? Here, I refer to his narcissistic characterisation of the selfie as a desperate attempt to reify an insecure subject: but a selfie can *also* be taken with minimal performativity, with intentional imperfection and vulnerability that maintains alterity. Also an interesting consideration for your next essay, I suppose!
Hmmm. Great points, naturally. I think it's not really porn-as-such that is the main problem (though there is a huge problem but different topic), but just the very fact that things are pornographic in nature. There certainly are very erotic films with sexual content - the question is, I think, whether it is pure information (in this case, very explicit sex-stuff) or alludes to something (a great nude usually hides more than it shows). So at least in my book, transparency without bounds is what eliminates beauty, and the problem is that this is very much "the" information age's crucial characteristic.
As for selfies - I think it's one of those things, where the "message" of the "medium" is just too strong. Whatever your intention, it's very existence carries something so profoundly narcissistic, that your intention becomes incidental. It's like the One Ring, no matter what you want to use it for, it corrupts even the best of intentions. But I'm a Luddite at heart so that's very much my personal POV!
Of course, we both agree that the problem isn't the presence of positivity per se, but the generalised *ontological violence* of positivity. I don't think we'd have any objections to occasional pornographic showings.
As for selfies, I slightly differ here (no offence taken, of course). I'm sure you've noticed I use a real photo on my profile; this is specifically an attempt to combat algorithmic flattening of subjecthood. On certain online spaces like this one, especially where the norm is a detached anonymity, I consider it to be the *riskier* option to not choose to be a disembodied username. (Or at least, it was certainly not the comfortable option for me.)
And I'd also refer to Lacan's remark that *les non-dupes errent*: isn't it true that it is impossible to escape performativity in *any* medium? In a Lacanian topology, narcissism is fundamentally an overinflation of the Imaginary. In a non-dual sense, you can aesthetically appreciate one's appearance just as a painting *without* a defensive inflation of the ideal ego—which is to say that self-appreciation on its own is not a sufficient condition for a narcissistic character. In fact, Han argues that the addiction to selfies is the *opposite* of self-appreciation, in a way, due to its typical motivation to *patch the Real*.
Honestly, I just can't argue with any of that, I think you're right (also re: selfie, pretty good book by Will Storr: Selfie: How We Became So Self-Obsessed). Also great having you here, thank you for such a great discussion and points!
Speaking of recommendations, given that we are both apparently French speakers, have you heard carmen by Stromae? It is very relevant, and his wordplay is incredibly witty.
David Chapman has written about the cultural atomisation you speak of here, if you're interested, in particular referring to Gangnam Style, the epitome of the genreless: https://meaningness.com/atomized-mode
I do disagree that it's not possible to define a cultural "decline". As you say, history is not linear, but it *is* cyclical. As societies decline thermodynamically, they tend to enter a chaotic interregnum such as this, as I describe in this section in my essay here: https://jakehpark.substack.com/i/163082944/collapse
For instance, the Roman cultural decline: https://www.historytools.org/stories/the-decline-and-fall-of-the-roman-empire-decadence-and-decay
Nero, Caligula, Commodus were noticeably worse than preceding emperors, much in the same way that Trump is distinctly worse now—not necessarily because of anything he's done (other presidents have killed far more), but because of the cultural capitulation he represents.
As Han details in *The Agony of Eros*, the culture of pornographic mass production flattens the Other into the Same, and annihilates the alterity that makes Eros possible. It is hard to argue that this isn't a loss.
Thank you for the comment and for the reading recs, I'll definitely take a look! As for the decadence part, I agree, and in the next piece I actually will be looking a bit more closely at the cultural output of late-modernism. Also I'm currently reading a book called The Decadent Society and it makes a similar argument. So yes, I am not optimistic at all.
On a slightly related note, if you've read *Saving Beauty* by Han, I'm curious as to what you think of his characterisation of pornography. I completely agree with his distinction between erotic art and pornography in the sense that pornography captures a *unary subject* that is singularly instrumental and performative, whereas erotic art preserves alterity through maintaining tension, a *punctum*, some asexual quality that characterises the subject and prevents the Other from turning into the Same (he mentions the texture of underwear as an example). Eros is made possible only through negativity, which I understand as an evolutionary basis for intimacy (trust develops only in total vulnerability, and seduction is costly and slow according to the handicap principle); Han argues pornography therefore destroys Eros. In this sense, there is a partial alignment with Dworkin's contention that pornography corrodes the capacity for relation and intimacy—by unidimensionally flattening the Other (unknowable, individual, uncontrollable) into the Same (transparent, instrumental, fungible), one cements the tendency to dehumanise and instrumentalise. But to play devil's advocate, I don't think *all* pornography necessarily destroys Eros: a pornographic film—that is, with the unary function of sexualisation—could be made in such a way that it preserves the subjecthood of the Other. Does transparency, as Han argues, *necessarily* eliminate beauty? Here, I refer to his narcissistic characterisation of the selfie as a desperate attempt to reify an insecure subject: but a selfie can *also* be taken with minimal performativity, with intentional imperfection and vulnerability that maintains alterity. Also an interesting consideration for your next essay, I suppose!
Hmmm. Great points, naturally. I think it's not really porn-as-such that is the main problem (though there is a huge problem but different topic), but just the very fact that things are pornographic in nature. There certainly are very erotic films with sexual content - the question is, I think, whether it is pure information (in this case, very explicit sex-stuff) or alludes to something (a great nude usually hides more than it shows). So at least in my book, transparency without bounds is what eliminates beauty, and the problem is that this is very much "the" information age's crucial characteristic.
As for selfies - I think it's one of those things, where the "message" of the "medium" is just too strong. Whatever your intention, it's very existence carries something so profoundly narcissistic, that your intention becomes incidental. It's like the One Ring, no matter what you want to use it for, it corrupts even the best of intentions. But I'm a Luddite at heart so that's very much my personal POV!
Of course, we both agree that the problem isn't the presence of positivity per se, but the generalised *ontological violence* of positivity. I don't think we'd have any objections to occasional pornographic showings.
As for selfies, I slightly differ here (no offence taken, of course). I'm sure you've noticed I use a real photo on my profile; this is specifically an attempt to combat algorithmic flattening of subjecthood. On certain online spaces like this one, especially where the norm is a detached anonymity, I consider it to be the *riskier* option to not choose to be a disembodied username. (Or at least, it was certainly not the comfortable option for me.)
And I'd also refer to Lacan's remark that *les non-dupes errent*: isn't it true that it is impossible to escape performativity in *any* medium? In a Lacanian topology, narcissism is fundamentally an overinflation of the Imaginary. In a non-dual sense, you can aesthetically appreciate one's appearance just as a painting *without* a defensive inflation of the ideal ego—which is to say that self-appreciation on its own is not a sufficient condition for a narcissistic character. In fact, Han argues that the addiction to selfies is the *opposite* of self-appreciation, in a way, due to its typical motivation to *patch the Real*.
Honestly, I just can't argue with any of that, I think you're right (also re: selfie, pretty good book by Will Storr: Selfie: How We Became So Self-Obsessed). Also great having you here, thank you for such a great discussion and points!
Speaking of recommendations, given that we are both apparently French speakers, have you heard carmen by Stromae? It is very relevant, and his wordplay is incredibly witty.
Oh joy, another book recommendation! I'll check it out.
And thank you, too! I am starved of conversation partners. It is not easy to find someone who will discuss these things in real life.
Ah, I'll probably check it out!