Movement of Movements

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Cyborg: Seminar (15pp/20min) Weeks 12-16

Present Seminar Paper.

2 Comments:

pamstaik said...: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter.”
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) Third president of the United States.

Fifteen percent of the United States’ mainstream media culture, especially those who regularly listen to conservative talk radio, may regard the media as a social ill, and although we cannot prove this, other data found through advertisement research has determined a certain percentage of the population is interpolated by a given media. On the other hand, a certain percentage of the electorate is represented by no-label and media watchdog groups, each contending that the media are a social ill because they are corporate. However, in the 1970s, the media represented the fourth and unspoken segment of the National government, acting as a watch dog poised to attack those who challenged the interests of the United States citizens. Thus, it was through the objective and subjective reporting of journalists during this decade that gave rise to the infamy that became known as the Watergate Scandal, leading to the removal of the thirty-seventh president from the White House on August 9, 1974.
These two factions of journalism, that of objective and subjective reporting, made an impact on the political environment during the 1970s in addition to creating new styles and aspects to political reporting. With respect to objective journalism, as seen through the work of Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, a new lexicon was created, the use of anonymous sources was encouraged and a change in the perception of reporters among mainstream media culture occurred. Additionally, a new style of subjective journalism was created, merging literary and new journalism together to form what Rolling Stone Magazine reporter Hunter S. Thompson called “Gonzo” journalism. But despite the contributions to the entire media community through the segments of objective and subjective journalism, the concept of objectivity is not in existence according to Guy Debord due to the cognitive process of receiving, interpreting and sending information. In relation to the theory proposed by Debord in Society of a Spectacle, the faction of subjective journalism, including the pieces written by Thompson, is considered to be more truthful than the work of objective reporters like Woodward and Bernstein due to the inclusion of opinions with factual information. Writing in a so-called unbiased reporting form is believed to be illusionary when interpreted via Debord’s theory, thus making subjective reporting closer to Debord’s theory of the real.
This thesis seeks to evaluate how the factions of objective and subjective journalism changed in response to the 1970s political struggles, in addition to how Debord’s analysis of the media in regards to Society of a Spectacle refutes the concept of objectivity in reporting. If we can understand how the factions of objective and subjective political journalism during the 1970s influenced the removal of President Nixon from the White House, then we will understand better the influence writers like Woodward, Bernstein and Thompson had on American journalism and its reception by the US mainstream media culture.
THE WOOD-STEIN EFFECT ON JOURNALISM
Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were able to change how society viewed the federal government during the 1970s through the use of their in-depth articles about the Nixon administration’s connection to the Watergate Scandal, in addition to utilizing new fact finding techniques and creating a new journalism lingo. As stated in the preface of Alicia Shepard’s book Woodward and Bernstein – Life in the Shadow of Watergate, the author discusses the different aspects that lead to the fame and success of the Washington Post reporters. Woodward and Bernstein, Shepard says, are responsible for not only a change in how hard news was reported in leading newspapers around the nation, but also for the changing political climate in relation to the clash between media and the government. “Not only did Woodward and Bernstein play a pivotal role in President Richard M. Nixon’s August 9, 1974 resignation, but their Watergate reporting and what immediately followed shaped the next thirty years of journalism” (Shepard xi). The author explains that their articles caused a change in the perceptions of the federal government as viewed by mainstream America and media representatives around the country. Furthermore, Woodward and Bernstein’s release of All the President’s Men produced a new journalism lingo in addition to forming new trends for fact finding techniques.
The growing dislike of government fueled by the Post’s articles illustrates the influence these two authors had on American politics both in regards to their writing abilities and their roles as moral historians. In the 1970s, the public received their media information completely different than today. Major daily newspapers and the three major broadcasting networks were the sources for civilian information. When the Watergate scandal broke, “people rushed to the curbs to pick up papers for the latest development” on the continuing saga of the presidency (Shepard xii). It was not until the Watergate hearings in 1973 that Americans became enamored by the power of television as an immediate news source. America’s attention was held by newspapers, causing readers to gradually recognize the names of Woodward and Bernstein, eventually connecting them as both historians and morality forces detailing the social and political ills of America. “The beauty of Woodward and Bernstein’s story is that it also tells the larger narrative of what has transpired in journalism since Watergate. Watergate marked the birth of a different kind of reporting – more aggressive, less respectful of the establishment” (Shepard xii). This overall disrespect for the establishment is not to say that the reporters, or mainstream media for that matter, oppose the national government in all areas. What is being conveyed in Shepard’s book analysis on the lives of Woodward and Bernstein is strictly that the reporters were simply emphasizing the immoral actions within the administration during the 1970s, while trying to create a change in political knowledge. Woodward and Bernstein simply taught other media sources how to be productively skeptical of the government.
But the Watergate Scandal was not the only catalyst for changing media coverage during the 1970s; there was also an international conflict known today as the war in Vietnam. The major turning point in news coverage came with “the release of the Pentagon Papers on the Vietnam War in 1971, which Nixon unsuccessfully tried to keep the Post and the New York Times from printing” (Shepard 47) In order to control the release of information to the public, Nixon sought the help of the United States Supreme Court, asking the justices to place an injunction against all papers with access to the Pentagon documents. This action violated the first amendment right of freedom of the press, causing the news media to react. The Pentagon Papers contained information regarding the United State’s purpose for fighting a war in Vietnam, in addition to the truth regarding numbers of casualties, death and the US’s overall progress in the event. “The Pentagon Papers became symbolic of the government trying to hide something” (Shepard 47). This deceit to the American public was not tolerated, particularly once the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the newspapers. The issue outlining the release of the Pentagon Papers only escalated when the CIA began investigating the published reports by comparing the newspaper content to the actual documents secured in the Pentagon. As is stated in Woodward and Bernstein’s book, “originally the administration had wanted a study of how close the New York Times version of the Pentagon Papers was to the actual documents,” (215). These investigations lead to the eventual investigating of all contradictory statements between the government and the press leading the two into direct opposition with one another.
After the drama regarding the release of the Pentagon Papers, the White House public relations machine started using political manipulations to keep the media in the dark about the presidency. This media manipulation worked so well that “Nixon and his vice president, Spiro Agnew, had successfully run a campaign convincing the public that the Nixon presidency was a victim of a hostile, vindictive press.” Thus, while the media was presenting all relevant information to the public, the White House released statements claiming the Pentagon Papers were stolen from the Pentagon and then sold to the media. This caused the media to look bad to the American public, not only because the media discussed the immoral actions of the national government, thus associating the president with immorality, but also in an ethical standpoint, as the public began to distrust the media due to the White House manipulations. This caused more stress to build between the political and media outlets in the country.
As the tensions continued to escalate between the press and the administration, the Washington Post reporters began to be regarded as leftists in political terminology because they sought to use the Watergate scandal as an example of the immorality in the White House. Jean Baudrillard writes that when the Washington Post reporters chose to denounce the administration as immoral, due to Nixon’s involvement in a scandal, readers began to associate the government with immorality, while the reporters were seen as moral watchdogs. (Durham 530). The Washington Post reporters tend “to regenerate through scandal a moral and political principle, through the imaginary, a sinking reality principle (Durham 530).” Americans thus interpreted the writings of Woodward and Bernstein to be an attack on the morality and ethics of leaders in Washington. Furthermore, Baudrillard states that the act of dissimulation masks the strengthening of morality within society, as a moral panic approaches a primitive scene of capital. “Its instantaneous cruelty, its incomprehensible ferocity, its fundamental immorality – that is what is scandalous, unacceptable to the system of moral and economic equivalence that is the axiom of leftist thought (Durham 530). The leftists in this case are the Washington Post reporters.
Baudrillard likens the interpretation of the federal government by the Washington Post reporters to that of Pierre Bourdieu’s interpretation of Bernstein and Woodward:
“He does the same work of purging and reviving moral order, an order of truth in which the veritable symbolic violence of the social order is engendered, well beyond all the relations of force, which are only its shifting and indifferent configuration in the moral and political consciences of men” (Durham 530).
Baudrillard states that by outlining the scandalous actions within a government and society’s lead figures, Bourdieu is in essence acting as if he were Woodward or Bernstein, the reporters that not only chronicled the deceit of the presidency, but sought to restore a moral order into society as a whole. However, the language that Baudrillard uses in this quotation is not positive in favor of restoring a moral order, but rather negative due to morality’s natural tendency to create symbolic violence within a community.
Not only did Bernstein and Woodward’s reporting and writing styles impact the journalism community in relation to the government, but with the publication of their co-authored book, All the President’s Men, a new journalism vocabulary took hold. The terminology made popular by the writers include quoting from a “reliable source, investigative reporting, deep background, off the record, stonewall, can you confirm or deny, and Deep Throat” (Shepard xiii). For example, as stated in Woodward and Bernstein’s book, the discussions between Woodward and what became known as “Deep Throat,” a constant anonymous source within the Watergate articles, all information offered to the reporter could only be used to confirm information that had been obtained via other sources or to provide more insight into the topic at hand. “In newspaper terminology, this meant the discussions were on ‘deep background,’” which soon became a common term for all journalists after the publication of the book (71). After publication, Woodward and Bernstein’s new terminology and phrases entered into the public atmosphere. The new style of talking to sources became interesting to society, causing community knowledge to be emphasized. The reporters were capable of gaining sources for direct attribution in news articles, depending on their job security.
Of all the aspects of reporting Woodward and Bernstein infiltrated in their stories regarding the Watergate Scandal, the inclusion of anonymous sources is most important. Although Woodward and Bernstein earned their success by bringing the puzzling mystery of the Watergate Scandal to the eyes of the public their contributions to society would not have been as successful had it not been for the famed anonymous source nick-named “Deep Throat” by The Washington Post. Woodward used an anonymous source that had access to information at CRP as well as the White House. “Woodward had promised he would never identify him or his position to anyone. Further, he had agreed never to quote the man, even as anonymous source” (Bernstein and Woodward 71). The reporters gained information from this man, and subsequently confirmed the information with a series of other sources prior to publication. Their relentless pursuit of the truth signified that Woodward and Bernstein were seeking to publish the truth as best they could. While they understood quoting an anonymous source would lead to a questionable audience perception of the media, the two were able to utilize the information they received by pushing their reporting skills that much further.
Aside from using anonymous sources to gain information for their articles, Woodward and Bernstein also approached potential sources more aggressively than other reporters during the 1970s. As quoted in Shepard’s book, CBS reporter Bob Schieffer said that Woodward and Bernstein had an edge that other reporters did not even consider. “They went to people’s houses after work and knocked on doors. Reporters didn’t do that then” (Shepard 46). Ironically, it was believed at the time that Washington operated under a system of rules that everyone abided by. Journalists were less aggressive, leaving most of the power in the hands of their sources. Schieffer continues this argument when he states that journalists would deal with people while they were at the office, not while at home. “If they returned your call, fine. If they didn’t, fine. . . You didn’t make a pest of yourself. Watergate was when the stakeouts first started” (Shepard 46).
As a result of the aggressive tactics used by Woodward and Bernstein to gain more information regarding the immorality of the presidency, the federal government began using surveillance tactics on government and media workers. During a session with a rather scared and flighty “Deep Throat,” Woodward found out that the CIA was in fact planning to use surveillance tactics to track down the information leaks. This threat included wiring of homes, the tapping of phone lines, and a basic intrusion into the lives of the reporters. After hearing the warning of his famed anonymous source, Woodward relayed information to his journalism partner. In All the President’s Men the reporters relate the story of a late-night meeting at Woodward’s apartment, where the two covered their voices with the sound of loud music and communicated via type writer. Woodward typed that “Deep Throat says that electronic surveillance is going on and we had better watch it” (Bernstein and Woodward 318). This emphasizes not only the fear the Washington Post reporters had of being wiretapped, but also their dedication to covering up their own trails to ensure the government would not find out the sources of the political leaks.
Woodward and Bernstein are thus seen as the catalyst responsible for creating the change in how hard news was reported in leading newspapers around the nation during the 1970s. They represent the beginning of the changing political climate in relation to the clash between media and the government, encompassing the media as leftists in the fight for political morality as a result of Watergate, the Nixon administration and the release of the Pentagon Papers. Their writings created a new way of hard news reporting, created a new vocabulary for journalists and set higher standards on fact finding measures.
REBELLIOUS WRITING FORMS AGAIN – GONZO STYLE
Subjective journalism, as it is known today, includes three distinct styles of news reporting: new journalism, literary journalism and what is called gonzo journalism. As explained in the introduction of Karen Roggenkamp’s book Narrating the News: New Journalism and Literary Genre in Late Nineteenth-Century American Newspapers and Fiction, new journalism was a literary form created in the late nineteenth century. This novel style of writing was “an innovative, commercialized, sensationalistic, and above all dramatic style of reportage” in newspapers during this time period (Roggenkamp xii). She explains that the term “new journalism” was coined by Mathew Arnold, a famous editor for Joseph Pulitzer’s news productions. According to Arnold, new journalism contains aspects of variety, sensation, and sympathy. However, Arnold states that “it throws out assertions at a venture because it wishes them true; does not correct either them or itself, if they are false; and to get at the state of things as they truly are seems to feel no concern whatever” (Roggenkamp xii). Arnold is emphasizing the most infamous trait of new journalism: the lack of factual reporting. Roggenkamp brings to light the concept of misrepresenting the truth in news articles by quoting from an advice manual written for aspiring reporters during the 1890s: “If you have a simple, sensible, breezy style with a sparkle in it, the newspaper reader will forgive a great deal of inaccuracy in your matter” (xiii). This style of reporting the news, while it still exists in modern tabloids found in the check-out lines at supermarkets, is no longer in practice at respectable news publications and magazines in the United States. What has taken its place has been called “literary journalism.”
Kevin Kerrane and Ben Yagoda, joint authors of The Art of Fact: A Historical Anthology of Literary Journalism, state that literary journalism encompasses thought-provoking, artfully constructed, innovative styles of writing without sacrificing truthful and in-depth accounts of news events. This style of writing is more than “just working from memory or sensory observation but doing what reporters call reporting” (Kerrane 13). Literary journalism, while still in existence today, took on another aspect of story telling in the 1970s with the emergence of “Gonzo Journalism,” a combination of literary and new journalism perfected by Hunter S. Thompson. Famous for his personal narration of news events and his inclusion of subjective material into his political articles, Thompson is the epitome of gonzo-styled writing, which combines the sensationalistic story telling of new journalism with the factual representation of literary journalism. This combination of fantasized events and truthful accounts in American society is what made his work so monumental throughout the changing political atmosphere of the 1970s.
Lois Tyson, the author of Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide, discussed the concept of psychoanalysis within reader-response theory. Tyson summarizes the psychoanalytic angle Norman Holland formed regarding this theory. Holland essentially believes that individuals will seek out information to reach a psychological goal, much like a person may seek out other facets in life This information is interpreted by the individual by bringing forth all of their psychological concepts to decode the knowledge. Holland believes that “the immediate goal of interpretation, like the immediate goal of our daily lives, is to fulfill our psychological needs and desires. When we perceive a textual threat to our psychological equilibrium, we must interpret the text in some way that will restore that equilibrium” (Tyson 168-169). This concept of bringing our psychological perceptions into any information we receive as a way to interpret the material is fascinating. For starters, if a person is reading “The Scum Also Rises" by Thompson, an article published in Rolling Stone Magazine describing the downfall of Nixon’s reign in presidency during the 1970s, perhaps they will regard their fallen leader in another light. Depending on their psychological background and personal health, an individual could be automatically open to what the reporters were trying to convey as truth to the public, or perhaps they will disregard the information as an attack on their own psyche.
Furthering Holland’s theory discussion in her book Critical Theory Today, Tyson elaborates on the idea of an individual’s identity theme. This is what Holland says we project onto all aspects of our lives, and gives people a way to approach new information from a familiar standpoint. “We project that identity onto every situation we encounter and thus perceive the world through the lens of our psychological experience” (Tyson 169). Tyson illustrates this idea by stating that when we read a book we inherently project our identity theme onto the publication, unconsciously recreating “in the text the world that exists in out own mind. Our interpretations, then, are products or fears, defenses, needs, and desires we project onto the text” (Tyson 169). Again, this idea of protracting our personal psyche onto media writings and broadcasts affects the overall acceptance of the material being delivered. Connecting this concept to what David Bleich stated about the objective truth, we see the control of objectivity and subjectivity in media writing being based off not only the community at large, but also their psychological background. The idea that society’s truth can be based off the psychological foundation of an entire society is intriguing. By examining Thompson’s article “The Scum Also Rises,” a political account written in Gonzo journalistic style, we can further Tyson discussions of readers bringing psychoanalytic measures to media reports.
Thompson’s style of writing, as emphasized in his article “The Scum Also Rises,” uses several literary devices to transcend from the conservative writing style of traditional journalism, like that written by Woodward and Bernstein, to the literary genius his stories seem to encompass. Although Woodward and Bernstein write in a form known as traditional journalistic style, they represent the leftists in American society, a group that Thompson also relates to. Their sole difference remains in their style of writing, that of traditionally telling the truth in a concise and simple manner to that of literary styleperfectedstyle perfected by Thompson. It is his use of metaphoric language and curse words to illustrate the resignation of President Nixon to the public that allowed Thompson’s audience to understand the political environment of the time, in addition to offering entertainment. For example, in Kerrane and Yagoda’s Art of Fact anthology, Thompson incorporates his thoughts and feelings regarding the fall of the Nixon administration, the impeachment process and his overwhelming exhaustion of dealing with the political climate of the U.S. in a state of change and confusion. Early in this selection, Thompson discusses the absence of political interest across the country by illustrating a scene in which he informs an airline booker that he is Ralph Nader, a name which was unknown to the airline worker. This concept of ignoring politics in the 1970s was emphasized in the following excerpt:
“Well . . . the goddamn thing is over now; it ended on Thursday afternoon with all the grace and meaning of a Coke bottle thrown off a third-floor fire escape on the Bowery – exploding on the sidewalk and scaring the shit out of everybody in range, from the ones who got righteously ripped full of glass splinters to the swarm of ‘innocent bystanders’ who still don’t know what happened . . .” (Thompson 306).
Additionally, the reader acknowledges Thompson’s overbearing disgust for the administration, which is enveloped in his wording as well as his presentation of material of the resignation of the president. The visual aspect of seeing a glass coke bottle explode on unsuspecting observers and the idea of fear ricocheting throughout the community is present. Aside from the inclusion of curse words and the use of metaphors to illustrate his message, Thompson’s writing is clearly a stand against traditional objective journalism, enabling the information to be received by the more alternative members of society.
Thus it is Thompson’s use of first person narration that serves as a catapult to propel Gonzo journalism into the American political climate, replacing the conservative story-telling techniques of conciseness, sobriety, objectivity, accuracy and unobtrusiveness with emotional content, hyperbolic language and a general dislike for all things Nixon. One of the personal qualities Thompson included in this work was illustrating to his readers how he obtained information regarding Nixon’s resignation. For instance, Thompson describes watching the television in between laps in a swimming pool. “The CBS Morning News would be on in about 20 minutes; I turned on the TV set, adjusted the aerial and turned the screen so I could see it from the pool about 20 feet away” (Thompson 313). He states that he worked this system out the year before when he was covering the Senate Watergate hearings. Whenever he would swim two laps, he would check out the screen of the television. If any new information came up, he was able to climb out of the water and watch the broadcasting station’s reports. “I would . . . turn up the sound, light a cigarette, open a fresh Bass Ale and take some notes while I watched the tiny screen for a general outline of whatever action Sam Ervin’s Roman circus might be expected to generate that day” (Thompson 313). Not only does Thompson enact the role of a journalist by writing down notes to include in his stories, but he assumes the role of a regular citizen. He describes drinking a beer and being enamored by the ramblings of the news station's reporters. By separating himself into two categories, that of an involved citizen and a journalist, Thompson is enabled to connect with his intended audience on a higher level. Additionally, Thompson included conversations he participated in with hotel workers, gave his personal insights on life, and released his fears regarding the future of the United States' political system. Because Thompson is opening himself up to his readers, in addition to assuming a duality of roles - that of a working journalist and a concerned American - he is able to connect to more people.
Another example of Thompson incorporating personal narration into his piece describing the last days of Nixon's presidency was his inclusion of his mood. He states in one of his writing monologues that he is miserable on account of bad weather, poor health, and a general lack of sleep. His foul mood and general lack of motivation to work is emphasized by his discussion of the day’s weather, a relatively unimportant fact in relation to the story telling of the end of the reign of Nixon, but an important placement of relative material to his general audience.
“On a day like this, not even the prospect of Richard Nixon’s downfall can work up the blood. This is stone, flat-out fucking weather. . . This is the kind of day when you want to be belly-to-belly with a good woman, in a warm bed, under a tin roof with the rain beating down and a bottle of good whiskey right next to the bed” (Thompson 304).
This quotation is serious and funny; drawing up mental images of sexual relations as well as the tension of not wanting to go to work – a concept most people have experienced at one time. Even though he states that the idea of Nixon’s end of office is excitement in itself it is hard to get excited for work on rainy days.
Lastly, it is Thompson’s inclusion of fictitious story telling that grasps the attention of his readers, enabling them to see the social and political climate of the country. While one of the most important aspects of journalism preached in institutions across the United States is accurately telling the news, Thompson created several scenes in his piece from “The Scum Also Rises” that were created to illustrate his points. Interestingly enough, Thompson was neither criticized nor held accountable for his creative license. In the last section of this piece, Thompson illustrates a scene in which he takes a cab to the White House, where he passes through all security points and enters an empty press room prior to entering the Presidential Rose Garden where he fictitiously witnesses the White House helicopter exiting the grounds. “The helicopter went straight up and hovered for a moment, then swooped down toward the Washington Monument and then angled up into the fog. Richard Nixon was gone.” (Thompson 315). The idea of the White House helicopter going toward the Washington Monument prior to lifting into a fog is significant. The illustration of a failed president flying toward the monument erected to honor the first president of the United States prior to disappearing in a fog is important symbolically to Thompson’s story telling. While Nixon’s goal may have been to hold a successful presidency, it dissipated into thin air, just as Thompson illustrated in this fictitious scene. Additionally, there is the bold statement that ends this piece: “Richard Nixon was gone” (Thompson 313). This sequence summarizes the breaking apart of the Nixon administration and the falling apart of society. On top of the metaphorical language Thompson uses, he incorporates a security guard who fails to properly check Thompson before he enters the White House. This image illustrates the confusion and uncertainty flowing through the country as people forgo acting in their traditional work positions in response to the resignation. Social unrest and fear existed in the people during this time period, and Thompson was able to illustrate that in this piece. While this selection was completely fictionalized, we can connect this concept back to what Roggenkamp stated was part of an advice manual written for aspiring reporters: As long as you tell a good story that has a spark of interest for the readers to consume, they will forgive any false information.
DOES TRUTH EXIST IN REPORTING?
The idea of truth and objectivity can be connected to the theories proposed by Guy Debord in his book The Society of a Spectacle. This collection of 221 theses is divided into nine chapters, allowing Debord to trace the development of modern society. In chapter one, which discusses the culmination of separation, Debord discusses truth as a representation. He explains that people observe spectacles, which can be thought of as being an event that is memorable for the appearance it creates in society. When society views these events, individuals perceive them and later interpret them to form a subjective meaning. “Life is presented as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has receded into a representation” (Debord, thesis one, paragraph 1). This connects to the role journalists play in society. Reporters must observe events, or spectacles, interpret them into their subjective meanings, and then relay the information they have observed and altered from its original form into a subjective meaning to the public. This is interesting to take note of as writers like Woodward and Bernstein are seen as objective reporters for reporting the news without biasness. Contrastly, the work of Thompson is regarded in mainstream media studies as being subjective for its inclusion of biasness and personal information. However, if applying Debord’s theory, Thompson’s use of subjective reporting is more truthful than Woodward and Bernstein’s objective style of writing as he does not fight the real.
In the essay by Farai Chideya called “The Uncertainty Principle of Reporting,” the author describes the conflict journalists battle when providing information to the public at large. Her book, entitled Trust: Reaching the 100 Million Missing Votes and Other Selected Essays, describes the political unrest experienced by modern voters as a result of legislation, politics and social movements of the past. Because reporters must relate to their readership, they must cross cultures, histories and diverse backgrounds to make an article relevant to an individual. This makes journalists and the subject being written about by journalists “uncomfortable allies in the search for truth,” meaning that readers and writers come together with diverse ideas of what truth is in a given society (180). The concept of truth telling and truth receiving is best illustrated by the reports written by journalists Woodward, Bernstein and Thompson.
While Woodward and Bernstein are seen as objective truth-tellers in the journalism profession, Thompson is regarded as being a subjective truth teller. Many have interpreted Thompson’s writing to encompass fallacies, as was noted earlier in this thesis. He includes fictionalized scenarios and includes information not pertinent to the telling of the news stories. For example, his use of describing Nixon’s helicopter liftoff from the White House was fictionalized, and his inclusion of personal information such as talking with air line workers was personalized but not urgently needed in the story. But is this style of writing going against reality? Several people feel Thompson’s inclusion of this material makes his writings more truthful than Woodward and Bernstein’s during their employment at the Washington Post as Watergate reporters. Their style is straight-forward, and it crosses all understandings of all individuals in American society. But perhaps their unbiased reporting was illusionary. Thompson states directly in his pieces what he feels about Nixon, the roles of the president, and how he sees the American public surviving the acts of immorality forced upon them by the federal government. Contrastly, Woodward and Bernstein use their power as writers to portray the president as immoral without declaring their opinions.
If I had more time to devote to expanding this thesis, I would want to research the concept of objectivity and subjectivity in relation to Debord’s study of the spectacle in relation to Thompson’s literary journalism and the leftist traditional reports of Woodward and Bernstein. For now I shall leave my reader with the following quotation from Debord’s sixth thesis as listed in the first chapter of The Society of a Spectacle:
“Understood in its totality, the spectacle is both the result and the project of the dominant mode of production. It is not a mere decoration added to the real world. It is the very heart of this real society’s unreality. In all of its particular manifestations — news, propaganda, advertising, entertainment — the spectacle represents the dominant model of life” (Debord, Thesis 6, paragraph 6).
UNTITING THE DIVISIONS
Through the objective and subjective political reporting of journalists during the 1970s, public awareness increased regarding the infamy that became known as the Watergate Scandal, leading to the removal of Nixon from presidential office. Yet, one can never fully know if Nixon would have been removed from office without the media’s influence on public opinion.
Despite Debord’s belief that all news media reports are subjective due to the cognitive process of receiving, interpreting and sending information, objective and subjective political reporting during the 1970s greatly influenced the mainstream media culture and aided in the removal of Nixon from office. This can be illustrated in Woodward and Bernstein’s contributions to objective journalism, including the creation of a new lexicon and the use of anonymous sources, allowing the American public to regard the reporters as moral historians within a framework of pure objectivity. Also, Thompson’s ability to establish himself as an equal to his readership by way of importing first-person narration and fictionalization into his form of reporting allowed Gonzo journalism to be received by the more alternative members of American society during the 1970s. If we can understand the influence objective and subjective political journalists had on American journalism and how their reports were received by the US mainstream media culture during the 1970s, then we can evaluate how modern political journalists can influence the mainstream media culture of today without dividing styles of reportage into the factions of objective and subjective writing.
Although I have shown that some members of the American population do not believe the media are properly representing all members of the American society, few have researched the political effects on the members that are underrepresented by the media. In other work, theorists could explore how these unrepresented individuals are influenced or not influenced by the news media in addition to exploring their involvement in modern political issues in America.
“You can crush a man with journalism.”
William Randolph Hearst

Works Cited
Bernstein, Carl and Bob Woodward. All the President’s Men. New York, N.Y. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1974.
Chideya, Farai. “The Uncertainty Principle of Reporting.” Trust: Reaching the 100 Million Missing Votes and Other Selected Essays. New York. Soft Skull Press, 2004.
Debord, Guy. “The Culmination of Separation. The Society of a Spectacle. Feb. 2007. http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/1.htm.
Durham, Meenakshi Gigi and Douglas M. Kellner. Media and Cultural Studies. Massachusetts. Blackwell Publishers Inc., 2001.
Goode, Stephen. “Since Watergate Scandal, the Intolerable is Tolerated.” Insight on the News. June 23, 1997, v13, n23, p12.
Mencken, H.L. “Homo Neanderthalensis.” The Monkey Trial. June 1925. 20 March 2007. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/menk.htm.
Mencken, H.L. “Homo Neanderthalensis.” The Monkey Trial. June 1925. 20 March 2007. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/menk.htm.
Orwell ,George. Politics and the English Language. GB, London, 1946. 20 March 2007. http://orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit.
“Radio Audience.” State of the News Media 2004: An Annual Report on American Journalism. http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/narrative_radio_
audience.asp?cat=3&media=8.
Roggenkamp, Karen. Narrating the News: New Journalism and Literary Genre in Late Nineteenth-Century American Newspapers and Fiction. Ohio. Kent State University, 2005.
Shepard, Alicia. Woodward and Bernstein – Life in the Shadow of Watergate. New Jersey. Wiley, 2007.
Steadman, Ralph. The Joke's Over : Bruised Memories : Gonzo, Hunter S. Thompson, and Me. Orlando : Harcourt, 2006.
Thompson, Hunter S. “The Scum Also Rises.” The Art of Fact: A Historical Anthology of Literary Journalism. New York, N.Y. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1998. Pg. 302-315
Tichi, Cecelia. Exposés and Excess : Muckraking in America, 1900-2000. Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004.
Tyson, Lois. “Reader-Response Criticism.” Critical Theory Today: A User- Friendly Guide. 1999.; April 25, 2007 6:53 PM
Melissa said...: What’s Happening Here
…When They Were Over There?
A New Historicist Approach to the Vietnam War

“The war is…beginning all over again for the children of the Vietnam War generation, who now seek to know just what happened to our nation.” - Walter Capps, 1982

In popular American opinion, the Vietnam War is believed to be the direct cause of the current historical moment that we can locate being clichéd within the statement ‘everything was different after Vietnam.’ However, it is possible that the Vietnam War itself does not rise to the category of what the philosopher Alain Badiou has called an “event” which in this case would have to be responsible for the current cultural moment and that perhaps perceiving the war as the Event is perhaps asking the wrong question of its significance. If we can grasp that new historicist critics can use eventology to gain a better understanding of how the current historical moment was produced, then we can more clearly recognize how the Vietnam War shaped the present cultural moment. Also, if we can see that the Vietnam War is not Event, but simulacrum of terror, then we can examine the social factors that may have more directly created that moment in order to better identify that moment. If the cultural production of the period such as television and literature are elements of cultural repercussions of the Vietnam War, then we can further explore these repercussions in terms of social factors in the homeland during and following the war which would allow for a deeper understanding of the cultural moment in terms outside of the war. If the exportation of free markets and parliamentary democracy that led to the war can be explained in terms of causal relationships, then we can view the fidelity in terms of these relationships: that this exportation was a cause of the Vietnam War, the war being a cause of cultural repercussions and turmoil - therefore the literature and cultural productions are manufactured as reverberations.
When I observe the textual and cultural production of the Vietnam War and post-Vietnam War periods, I use a new historicist critical approach to understanding the American cultural phenomenon that evolved between 1961 (Eisenhower’s farewell address naming the military industrial complex, MIC) and 1991 (the full dismantling of the USSR) which facilitated the creation of the current Western historical moment. First, I situate Badiou’s philosophy in order to discuss the Vietnam War in terms of the event and The Things They Carried and the untitled letter from Theresa Davis to her son within Badiou’s philosophy; second, literatures and cultural production that surrounds this period figure fidelity to the always un-nameable event. Certain postmodern literature, 1970’s television like “Mary Tyler Moore”, and the literature surrounding the self improvement movements of the 1970’s are lenses through which the development of the current cultural moment be seen. Lastly, I discuss alternate interpretations that might claim that the complexity of the fidelity imply that the Vietnam War itself may not be the event but rather, several other related forces may have created our historical moment. We can imagine a fidelity that would surpass the original literature and cultural production that appeared after the Vietnam War. The consequences of America’s imperialistic exportation of free markets (capitalism) and parliamentary democracy had created what Badiou would call a terror. As this terror then, the Vietnam War might not in fact be an event, but exists as a Badiouian Evil.
Badiou for the New Historicist & Textual Analysis
Alain Badiou’s philosophy concerning being, event, and truth can be used as a device for new-historicists to view American literatures that emerged from the Vietnam War and post-Vietnam War era. These provide a way to more fully understand the cultural phenomenon that occurred following the Vietnam War in America. In his book Ethics: An Essay on the Understanding of Evil Badiou asks that a redefinition of terms occur, and understanding and knowing these terms is essential to comprehension of his philosophy as well as how new-historicism can use his ideas to enhance their readings. Terms that Badiou commonly uses are: void, event, fidelity, truth and subject; and they compose what can overall be known hereto forth as representatives of Eventology.
Void: The set of perceived knowledge; in this study, the historical moment in which the innocence still existed. Civilian innocence existed when they trusted their government’s judgment (and pre-scandals such as Watergate), before the assassinations of national leaders in 1963, 1965, 1968 (both Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King), and before escalation of the war through implementing selective service in 1969. This generation, those that are of age for the selective service, have no memories of the Korean War. This causes the Vietnam War to be ontologically different to the youthful energy and idealism that it interrupts. Also, the assassinations were the first of this generation that was born in the late 1940s and early 1950s, and occurred on a multiple scale.
Event: A rupture in the void causing a change such that the void can no longer be fully accepted as it were; un-nameable, not unknown. This un-nameable event manifests through the spectacle and illusion of the democratization of power that existed from the government to its people that existed from the beginning of this generation (at least) until the civilian majority opposed the war and the war continued, revealing this illusion. Differentiation of struggle such as that of the Black Panthers, war protestors, and civil rights activists exposed inner divisions as well as divisions between the people and centralized power, as well as the abandon of hierarchy through mass protests were signs of the ontologically newer things through which the un-nameable event also manifests.
Fidelity: The subject that follows the logic of the event also perpetuates the event; The Things They Carried, Theresa Davis’ Letter and television, specifically the trend that “Mary Tyler Moore” manifests, all of which reflect the new logic.
Truth: The pattern that is created by the fidelity; characterizations of these literatures and social awareness ideas that they perpetuate, patterns are highly varied. They are ontologically productive, yet reactive. The truth here is the recognition of evil by Americans, but not with Badiou’s language of terror. It is the legacy of the lifestyle that is forcibly adopted. The belief that perhaps the government made a mistake concerning the war through escalation and the selective service is the recognition of evil.
Subject: A part of fidelity production in which the logic of the event is perpetuated through entry into the logic of the fidelity; a collective legacy of questioning, change in how individuals collect and resist their government, skepticism, cynicism, riots, race tensions and critical mistrust of the government all constitute this critical, ontologically new subject. It is that which the era has acted upon and therefore perpetuates the fidelity in some way, for example, the production of texts, critical scholarship, memoirs and fiction.
In order to produce fidelity (that in turn produces truth) the subject must experience the event. The subject is the support for the fidelity upon which truth is based. Badiou explains briefly that someone can immortally contribute to history by perpetuating fidelity by experiencing an event, the Event or a personal event that perpetuates the larger. He explains that in order to act according to the logic of the event through entering the fidelity one must experience the event. Here, Badiou discusses that entering the subject is to genuinely experience the rupturing of the void on an individual level.
The Immortal that I am capable of being cannot be spurred in me by the effects
of communicative sociality, it must be directly seized by fidelity. That is to say:
broken, in its multiple-being, by the course of an immanent break, and convoked,
finally, with or without knowing it, by the evental supplement. To enter into the
composition of a subject of truth can only be something that happens to you.
(Badiou, 51)
The fidelity must directly act upon the individual, not that individual’s collective identity or social affiliations. The Vietnam War is viewed as a cultural phenomenon; however, the event that is associated it had to be a rupture in the void realized on an individual basis, not a cultural universality. Truths are the patterns that can be found by examining American literatures and theoretical text concerning the Vietnam War and post-Vietnam War America that serve as the fidelity to an event. By observing the truths contained in the literatures of this era the event that caused the cultural phenomenon can perhaps be identified.
Walter Benjamin, a German Marxist philosopher (also literary critic, translator and essayist) composed the Arcades Project, an unfinished posthumously published work of cultural criticism. Within the project, he makes several observations that are inspired by the French arcades and they are catalogued them by subject. He mentions the dialectical image, which is in direct relationship to what this paper addresses, because it examines the past and inevitably superimposes the present upon that perception. Here, Benjamin is stating that the image that we see when observing an object is the combination of how the object was originally contextualized and how it is perceived because present moment. In the Arcades Project he mentions the conflict of the dialectical:
It’s not that what is past casts its light on what is present, or what is present
its light on what is past; rather, image is that wherein what has been comes
together in a flash with the now to form a constellation…image is dialectics
at a standstill…only dialectical images are genuine images.(N2a3 Benjamin,
462)
New historicist critics can use Benjamin’s dialectic when approaching a historical study so that the present is not imposed upon their interpretations of the past. A historical approach that allows for seeing multiple images in a single concept is one that allows for a genuine interpretation of the past. A multiple image analysis of history is important for new historicists because the alternate angles of perception can offer other perspectives of history that they are looking for in their studies.
Later he mentions that the purpose of the dialectic is “to dissipate the semblance of eternal sameness, and even of repetition in history.” (N9,5; 473) Juxtaposition of images upon image so we can allow each image to represent its own ideas and contexts is what the historicist observes when using the dialectic. With Benjamin’s dialectics, the composition of the Badiouian fidelity is an interaction of the dialectical. In the Badiouian event, sameness and repetition are avoided similarly to Benjamin’s dialectic; however phantasmagoria (the forcing of the dialectical away from an object and perceiving the object in a single context) acts closely to the fidelity imposed by Badiouian terror as simulacrum. Benjamin also states that “history decays into images” (N10a3, 476), applied can be the images that compose the historical element of the Vietnam War. Within the Vietnam War era one can locate a dialectical image. The fidelity then conveys the dialectical image that is examined when the Vietnam War is resisted, and then for historians when it is studied as separate from their moment.
In order to examine the event and understand the void, subject and truths this imaged fidelity must be studied to derive its implications in respect to Badiou for the new historicist approach. In a letter from Theresa Davis to her deceased son that she left at the Vietnam War Memorial, she describes her feelings about her son, and those she encountered during coping with his loss. This letter memoir of mother to son offers many of the sentiments that characterize the Vietnam fidelity: heartbreak, resignation and sacrifice. These three are implicit embodiments of other characteristics in the fidelity that include the feeling of loss on a personal level, and eventually on the national military level. The letter is an important component of Vietnam War era literature because it is a unique display of the bond between mother and first-born son, a direct lens into loss and as universal a note as possible without Badiouian terror.
Davis’ letter is also an example of how a fidelity can instead of providing clarity and closure can instead impose a continual exacerbation of the truths behind it. The gravity of her tone is contrasted by the resignation to her reality and her reluctant acceptance. Davis’ letter is direct expression of her feelings that are specific to her experience as an individual who lived during the Vietnam War era, which makes it a unique piece of literature in this genre through its explicit communicative style. “I pretended to be brave. But inside, the empty space just grew larger. It’s been a long time my son. I still miss you. I will always miss you.” (Davis, 440) Here, Davis is describing having to maintain a strong front to her other children while losing emotional structural supports and permanent loss of loved ones due to the death of her husband, and now her first born son.
Davis also discusses her interactions with Vietnam War Veterans in her role as a Gold Star mother, a term that is patronizing but suffices because there is nothing more to be offered. In her letter, she addresses the inadequacy of these surrogate relationships while simultaneously maintaining the fidelity production and subject as exclusive to those whom experienced the event. A fictitious example of a veteran’s life following return from the war is Norman Bowker. Bowker is a socially disoriented Vietnam veteran in Tim O’Brien’s The Things They Carried who is struggling to find normalcy, purpose and intimacy after his return to the states from fighting in Vietnam. O’Brien’s fictitious example of Norman Bowker poses as the embodiment of the displaced Vietnam veteran who often had no one to listen, or were reluctant to discuss their experiences when someone was interested. For example, when Norman was driving in circles around the lake in his hometown for an entire evening he stops at a drive-up A&W he begins an awkward conversation with the employee who takes his order over the speaker. When the employee is ready to listen after Bowker announces that he has finished his meal Norman begins but stops himself.
The exchange that occurs when the employee is taking his order, as well as this one when he has difficulty talking about his experiences is an interesting play upon the military style communication of radios and radio slang. The employee talks as if he is a radio operator using military slang terms, and similar to veteran fighters when new soldiers shipped over to Vietnam, he becomes exasperated when Bowker does not understand what he means by a certain term. It is an adoption by mainstream American culture of the military design, which is a display of how quickly the concept of war becomes stylized and institutionalized.
Bowker also shows how the transition from life fighting in Vietnam to resuming normalcy in the states was often difficult, and in his case impossible. Norman Bowker committed suicide by hanging himself in his local YMCA with a jump rope three years after the fall of Saigon (1975), making his case that of extreme displacement and post-war melancholy from which there was no recovery. In Bowker’s letter to the narrator in the dialectical 1975, Bowker states that “The thing is, there’s no place to go. Not just in this lousy little town. In general. My life, I mean. It’s almost like I got killed over in Nam…Hard to describe.” (O’Brien, 156) Although a veteran may have literally survived the war, several were not mentally equipped for the task of a soldier. As a result of incoming disadvantages or experiences, several veterans returned home and behaved differently than before, or sought a career in the military because they could no longer see themselves doing anything other than fighting. Upon his return, Norman Bowker was unable to reassume a normal life and spent his days in the YMCA and driving around with no destination until his suicide in 1978. In O’Brien’s example of Norman Bowker he demonstrates two important components of the Vietnam War fidelity: displacement of Veterans and the overall reluctant tone surrounding discussion of the war.
Vietnam War as Terror or Simulacrum

Another progressive fidelity, what I will call a second-generation fidelity, manifests as a result of the unresolved fidelity of the first. This first generation consists of: Vietnam veterans, family of Vietnam veterans, college students, hippies, civil rights activists, draft dodgers, 2nd wave feminists . A new generation of subjects have been produced that manifest from the cultural production but not from Vietnam . The Things They Carried and Theresa Davis’s letter seem to reflect the cultural repercussions to the Vietnam War. Studying the fidelity that is associated with the Vietnam War era leads to further understanding of the environment of the Event, and further characterization of the un-nameable event. An examination of the cultural production of this period in conjunction with production preceding the era as well as following can provide insight to the cultural setting of the period (1961-1991).
Such a diverse reaction to the Vietnam War, culturally and critically, raises questions regarding its status as an event. It is a possibility that the Vietnam War is not an event, rather it is simulacrum and terror, that is to say, a false event in the Badiouian sense. A basic understanding of Evil is that it is non-event; it is not itself a rupture in perceived knowledge, although it can be the source of true event, fidelity and truths. Badiou states that “(o)ur first definition of Evil is this: Evil is the process of a simulacrum of truth. And in its essence, under a name of its invention, it is terror directed at everyone.” (77) Here, Badiou is stating that Evil can produce its own fidelity and truths that appear very similar in form to that of those to an Event. Although it has not yet been determined as either Event or Evil, through exploration of this possibility the Vietnam War does fit the classification of simulacrum, most aptly as Evil in the form of terror.
Examining terror takes into consideration that looking into the Vietnam War as an event is asking the wrong question of the situation. Perhaps the Vietnam War is terror because it possesses the qualities of truth event such as fidelity and an abstract set of those who simultaneously enter the subject as it is created. The example used by Badiou to describe terror is Nazi Germany and the Third Reich, however the terms that he uses can be easily substituted to accommodate the American situation. As racial slurs that pastiche a legitimate term (‘Gook’ a derivative of the native migook and ‘Jew’ from Judiasm, Jewish, etc.) simulacrum creates its own terminology. In this study instead of ‘Jew’, ‘Gook’ serves as the word to characterize the enemy (although its origins are in the Korean War). In supplement to Nazism, American Imperialism will do more than suffice. On these terms Badiou’s ideology can be explained to fit the situation concerning the Vietnam War quite well under its hypothetical existence as terror. Gook being the name that is given to the enemy under the presumption of simulacrum, it characterizes all aspects of the void which need be eliminated: xenophobia and communism. This is American Imperialist simplification and grouping of diverse terminology into one enemy to condense to situation from its true breadth. This void of ‘Gook’ (in its slang rather than native lingual tense), similarly to that of ‘Jew’, only existed to those who created it and are subjects under simulacrum. ‘Gook’ is the production of American Imperialism to reduce the abstraction of causes into a human enemy that can theoretically be eliminated.
Another sense in which the Vietnam War is suspiciously similar to simulacrum is that its fidelity is seemingly created from the “closed particularity” of the abstract set that is its subject. As seen in Sam Brown’s short essay “Legacy of Choices”, he discusses that the Vietnam War is a “generational talisman that only we can touch.” Although this is a weaker example of how the Vietnam War is simulacrum, the fidelity possesses a universal nominalization of the event as well, which is dichotomous as the induction of power as a radical break and in semblance of terror.
In tradition to the first-generation fidelity, the second-generation fidelity contains a multiplicity of opinions and viewpoints. The second generation, those that are once removed from the event or are in the current education system, implies the role of silence in the fidelity. Silence convolutes discovery and compounds the dialectical image that is seen when students look at the Vietnam War era. The first generation example of the student body in America of the 1960s and 1970s may lead closer toward knowing that the event that changed America was likely not the war.
By discussing the factors that united college students during the Vietnam War, Sam Brown expresses in his article “Legacy of Choices” that although the 60s generation is a part of history, it will not simply fade away and its impact is yet to be felt. Brown discusses some of the cultural contexts of college life during the Vietnam conflict, and through these he demonstrates how the bond between the young adults who experienced these contexts was formed. “I have found that people of my generation show such a tolerance for each other, an empathy that does not reach beyond generational lines when talking about the war. ‘Nam is a generational talisman that only we can touch.” (Brown, 192) In his statement, Badiouian ethics can be applied concerning the concept surrounding the exclusivity of those who enter into the subject of an event through experiencing it. A sense of community is formed between the individuals who have entered the subject; and, by this exchange of discourses produced by this bond, the fidelity that surrounds Vietnam War has been fashioned. He also mentions that there were factions of ideology within his generation, primarily the differing conceptualizations of soldiers. A question emerged asking whether the soldiers were criminal, foolish, stupid or used. These factions are important in understanding that the situation under which students of that era were not subjected to terror within their movement by being forced to uphold identical ideologies.
Brown also describes that the youth did not necessarily feel deceived, rather they felt that they had been used. An understanding military authority by the students in terms of ‘using’ American soldiers is an indicator of a ruptured void, and leads closer towards understanding when the rupture has occurred within the possibility that it is not the war itself. Brown expresses that the legacy, or fidelity, of the Vietnam War is far from ended on two levels: the capacity for self-criticism and the generation’s longevity, not acting solely as an inactive component of history, rather as yet to complete the generational impact of which it is capable.
In spite of some scholarly claims that the impact of the Vietnam era fidelity is yet to be or still being felt, some scholars believe that the Vietnam War fidelity is dying. As a result of lack of education due to the politically charged nature of the content, many children of middle and high school age learn relatively little of the conflict in Vietnam. McCloud, a Vietnam Veteran and junior high teacher explains in the prologue/epilogue to his compilation of letters entitled What Should We Tell Our Children About Vietnam? that he had begun exploring what to teach his students concerning the war. In his prologue he describes his pursuits and handwritten requests to government officials (during the war and present), journalists, authors of books on the topic (including Tim O’Brien), leading opposition voices and public figures to describe the lessons of the Vietnam War. In the letters that he received in reply to his request, McCloud created his compilation and outlines the points he describes as most important. His observations are components that follow the logic of the fidelity associated with the war. These oscillate from being rediscovery of the griminess of war yet its alleged nobility, the ‘outstanding’ military performance in contrast to the war’s unpopularity. In the fidelity to the Vietnam War can be found lessons as well as unresolved sentiments, as seen in the various opinions of what has been gathered from the experience. McCloud states that these lessons are what he intended to gather from various sources and opinions.
In his preface and epilogue to his compilation, McCloud discusses the importance of not ‘losing’ the legacy of the war through lack of education as well as the essential nature of defining to descendants of the Vietnam War Generation factors that shaped America during the 1960’s and 1970’s. The problem of communication that characterized the government interactions with American citizenry has manifested itself in the fidelity that was produced and is perpetuated on the personal level of instruction. “Students have made it clear to me that they see this as the war no one wants to talk about. They seem to be saying that they know the war is the skeleton in American’s family closet.” (McCloud, xvi) Although many questions and irresolute sentiments characterize the fidelity, it is as if the silence is as much of the fidelity as is the expressed element. America’s silence regarding the war is continually adding an implicit value of shame concerning the subject.
The fidelity being tainted by shame is problematic to understanding and interpretation. Silence, although a part, is not a contributor to the fidelity: it is a detriment and thievery from the troves of knowledge. The conflicting fidelity implies that nothing is resolved and the logic is also contradictory due to the divisive nature of the war itself. The fidelity to the Vietnam War is true to the logic that created it, being faithful in form of reflection. Therefore, the very nature of the war has disallowed it from becoming something that can sink peacefully into the past; rather it is in fact an ongoing irresolute conflict that Americans cannot overcome. The only foreseeable elimination of this divergence would be the cessation of education regarding the war and a figurative erasure, or Badiouian betrayal.
Following this logic of multiplicity, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is a contributor to the fidelity that also stimulates varying response. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial consists of the wall, a flagpole and statue of three American soldiers. As one of the more evident components of the Vietnam War fidelity, the memorial (officially designed and construction began in 1982) is a source of strong, variant rhetoric to those who visit, and its multiple readings as a postmodern text demonstrate a conglomerate of meanings. The multiple readings of the memorial are similar in terms of chaos to the fidelity that produced it. Mutability is the main categorization of the fidelity that is left by the memorial. It is constantly changing in the artifacts that are left by it daily that alters the text of the wall with each individual’s addition to it and the mirrored finish to the wall constantly reflects a changing scenery. This is significant of two factors: the multiplicity of consequence and the different attitudes that characterize the war.
The understated simplicity of the memorial, its low profile setting that is obscured from the North and tapered to the landscape, in addition to its black color that can be adversely read as the guilt that is associated with the Vietnam War, in spite of the action of commemoration and honor to those who died in combat. It is a self-contained irony, created in order to memorialize and remember while simultaneously camouflaging itself and maintaining an unassuming low profile.
In addition to the modest landscaping, the reactions to the memorial are not like that to other patriotic or war memorials. It is not a sense of pride or patriotism, but rather a sense of shame, and being aghast to the atrocity with which the individual is being presented. Rather than triumph, the memorial echoes reverence, humility in its structure, massiveness of death and scarcity of life. Mixed feelings regarding the meaning, design and origin of the memorial are fidelity to the fidelity of the Vietnam War. These implicit discourses of the wall are also components of a “shifting symbolic ground” (Blair, 362) Outside of the implications of the memorial itself are those of the other American monuments regarding war or nationalism. For example within the same locale of Washington DC the Washington Monument and the USMC War Memorial stand in contrast to the Vietnam War Memorial. The Washington Monument that was built to honor the United States’ first president stands at 555 feet and can been seen from afar. It is a proud and phallic structure that reflects the nationalist attitude and phallio-centric culture in which it was produced.
Similarly, the Marine Corps War Memorial depicts the image from a famous posed photograph that was taken as four US soldiers raised a second flag atop Mt. Suribachi during the battle at Iwo Jima during WWII. It is a proud commemoration of the action, sacrifice and contribution of the soldiers who participated. When compared to its antecedents’ displays of grandeur, the Vietnam War Memorial is somewhat hidden and low profile. In context of design, an implicit level of shame lies in the construction of the Vietnam War Memorial, especially in comparison to its majestic predecessors.

1970’s Postmodern Literature, Television and Self Improvement

The era of literature that reflects the cultural repercussions of the Vietnam War is the postmodern period. The trends of postmodern literature in this era tend towards chaotic as a reflection of their period. 1970’s television figures fidelity because war-reporting on television in the domestic space contributed to cultural shifts in this area of image production. The literature of self improvement figures this fidelity a focus on individual in lieu of focus on totality as an escapist gesture. This fidelity is composed of music, literature, advertising, and television and more. However, only literature, television and minor cultural movements are analyzed within this section. Examining generalized trends during this era provides a greater understanding of the environment in which the Event occurred, and also clarity regarding the creation of the current historical moment. By working backwards from fidelity towards event, or the practice of examining the whole to find the common, helps in identifying potential Evil. The Badiouian subject that existed during the Vietnam War was exposed to the complex fidelity produced by the erratic period.
As demonstrated by the works of this period such as: The Things They Carried, and War Letters, the specific texts that this paper references, the American novel from this era of postmodernism reflects the pressure of fears, hatreds and passions that were interacting during the Vietnam War. Postmodern authors would produce nostalgic reflections upon modernist writings, but through the postmodern period a more chaotic style was adopted. A trend of postmodernism was the focus upon existentialist and crisis theology, which seemed more fitting in their era. This began the shift from the idealism that earlier authors of modernism possessed. Although they disagreed with many modernist works, the postmodernists found sympathetic identity in the more tragic modernist authorship.
Also, writers during the pre-war and war eras did not disappear from the career; they edgily shifted from one style to another, their works spanning many genres. Works like Invisible Man show the apocalyptic mood that settled over 1960’s fiction. (Dickstein, 145) Postmodern fiction is an excellent lens through which cultural beliefs and movements can be seen as a result of analysis of authorial intent. “Bellow turned from distanced, ironic, carefully structured fictions toward mercurial self-portraits, using himself as a prism through which the cultural moment can be refracted.” (171) The postmodern novel serves more to reflect the pressures, discontent, anxiety and insecurities of the cultural setting in which it was written.
The disoriented designs of literatures and culture during, and produced by, this era present a confusing element that is confronted in the process of this study. Many literatures and expressions of the fidelity are combined with the personal entanglement of all these who had entered the subject of, and act upon the logic of the fidelity. “Divesting the critical process of my own personal engagement…I realized that…my personal history was tangled up in the history of the Vietnam conflict. I was four years old when the first American was killed in Vietnam and twenty when the last was killed” (348) Blair’s statement is characteristic of the involvement with which many those subject to, and who were which producers of the Vietnam War fidelity. Blair also addresses the totality of the war in terms of years-of-age that are easily understood. This is once more an example of Brown’s “talisman” from his article “Legacy of Choices”, or the exclusivity of the subject under which those that experienced the Vietnam War have entered.
American television programming continually rose in popularity since its 1940’s introduction was a form of importing image production to the domestic space. This created a larger market for advertising, a localized form of entertainment outside the cinema, and during the war, the television was a means of importing violence into the domestic space through war-reporting of the 1960s. It experienced a change beginning in 1972 originating from sociocultural shifts that occurred during the 1960s and a desire for more tasteful programming. In this new era of television from 1972-1974, women were preyed upon by advertisements, that marketed towards them as empowered consumers. Women’s transformation into an “empowered” being during the 1960s made targeted advertising easier. A domestic approach to self awareness was also developed from the surge in feminist literature in the 1960s, stemming from Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique. Rapid expanse of feminist movement in the 1970s was the desire of women to inwardly and outwardly express their identity using gender concepts. Also in style was a more empowered female role such as seen in ‘All in the Family’ and ‘Mary Tyler Moore’ that was first aired in September of 1970.
Inferred effects of the Vietnam War can be said to be seen in the change in television programming in the 1970’s. The early 1970’s kept pace with the changing woman, instead of the 1960’s programming tendency to keep with the times, which commonly included field reports and war footage of the action in Vietnam. Rather than the depressing and debased point of television in the 1960’s, television writers began to strive for a more wholesome programming. Hence, the “goofy good will” of ‘Mary Tyler Moore’s’ characters was cherished. This paired with wit, class and charm characterized the aims of early 1970’s programming. The light hearted comedy of the show also provided a form of escapist comedy that created a contrast from the harsh news programming, one of the two being what Americans chose to fill their living rooms with each evening.
In addition to light hearted comedies, elements of modesty, self-reflexiveness and thoughtful comedy were valued in the production of television shows during this period. Josh Ozersky in Archie Bunker’s America discusses the television industry during the 1960s and 1970s and examines the trends of industry history. When he is examining the contrast between 1960s and 1970s television programming, he attributes the change in trends to a desire for classier productions, stating that “In TV, too, prestige means something and perhaps all the more so for the mediums low status in the culture. To achieve commercial success in the process became every producer’s dream.” (Ozersky, 87) He explains that producers avoided debased and dark features and strived to emerge with great popularity through creating more wholesome programming in a nation seeking a change in pace. 1960s war-reporting was a reflection of the environment outside of television industry. However, beginning in the 1970s as an attempt to either reclaim the industry’s status or as an escapist gesture the programming shifted towards more tasteful shows.
Arthur Stein, author of Seeds of the Seventies: Values, Work, and Commitment in Post-Vietnam America, examines the 1970’s by categorizing the movements that grew during the period and the trends that the American public flocked towards. Many Americans had decided to migrate from urban to rural areas of the country in order to isolate themselves from the plagues of modern societal living. Similarly, support for ecological based movements grew, striving to preserve the natural environment. Americans were seeking activities that would not only divert their attention from the growing disaster in Vietnam, but the positive activist groups would also serve as self-affirmation.
Another popular trend was self-exploration and self-improvement techniques, which were usually the practice of health maintenance, preventative medicine, and workouts such as yoga and tai-chi Approaches to self-awareness became popular through the Americanization of Asian traditions, primarily made possible from globalization that provided commercial contact between Eastern and Western worlds. This presents an interesting cultural irony, the things that Americans used desiring to improve themselves, was provided through that which brought them into what they may have been attempting to escape. Globalization introduced the American market and political spectrum to communism and an increased sense of xenophobia that were simplified and mass produced in form of McCarthyism, Eisenhower’s militaristic administration and military industrial complex, which are exported as the Vietnam War.
In spite of the self-improvement trend and positive images from television pop-culture, scholar Philip Beidler notes in his essay “Situation Report” that America will never get over Vietnam. However the important choice lies in what America chooses to do with this fact. In Badiou’s terms, the fidelity exists and those that have entered the subject determine the course of the fidelity and the truths it perpetuates. Understanding the current trend of not heeding to literary wisdoms, the retribution of the ‘amnesiac’ characteristic of how America is addressing the truths associated with the Vietnam War will eventually find its way back to Americans; and as McCloud notes, lack of education is likely the vehicle.
A similar educational concern is felt in regard to literature expressed by Philip Beidler with other scholars’ frustration, cultural consciousness and impotence. In "Situation Report”, Beidler is concerned with the massive amounts of Vietnam War related literatures that are produced each year, yet contradicted by America’s ever thriving myth of exceptionalism. With emphasis on the power of words being lost when writing about Vietnam, the literatures that surround the era are regarded flippantly as entertainment at best although they are far from being as empty as they are regarded. Beidler points out the expanse and multiplicity of titles that continually emerge is problematic, but argues that in the “…example of Vietnam writing: its claim, within the life of culture, that attempts to make some sense of the war can make a difference-words, in fact, can and do change the world.” (Beidler, 157) With the domestic surge of neoconservative attitudes the expectation for Americans gathering lessons and wisdom from Vietnam War era literatures is growing less optimistic, if not simply regressive. (163)
1970s America can be viewed as a period of recovery from the events of the 1960’s: assassinations of charismatic leaders such as Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Kennedy brothers; the death of several pop culture icons such as Marilyn Monroe and Brian Jones; continuing, escalating involvement in Vietnam; and the end of idealism with the introduction of hard drugs and hard times. The self improvement movements of this period can be attributed to a narrowed focus to the individual level rather than the global as a form of escapist gesture. The need for these movements and the exhaustion which settled over many Americans is explained by Stein when he states that “Some of those whose lives had been profoundly affected by the events of the 1960s felt the need to develop a new orientation, to bring their lives back into balance. They felt that a time for reflection and reassessment was necessary.” (8) The “reservoir of untapped youthful idealism” that sprung forth during the 1960s no longer held its grip over Americans as a result of the tiresome events of the decade. A new, exhausted spirit settled over cultural America. Attached to the exhaustion however, was the desire to reexamine the experiences of the 60’s and a renewed desire to balance the chaos that defined them for over a decade.

New historicists can use Badiouian philosophy as a method of examining how the current cultural moment was produced. Within the fidelity to simulacrum of terror, the texts reflect the resistance in which they were created, and therefore serve as a lens into the society that produced them. Through examining these forms of cultural production, I have found that the Vietnam War exists as a Badiouian Evil, and that the present cultural moment can rather be attributed to interacting related social forces. If we can recognize how the Vietnam War shaped the present historical moment as well as social factors, then we can begin to understand how acting under the resistance to simulacrum is as powerful as acting under the fidelity of an Event, and how easily the two are confused in context of reality. Since the fidelity is not that of the Vietnam War because the war is terror, and other social aspects have created the historical moment, then these can be examined in order to obtain a better understanding of the cultural moment that they produced. This current historical moment is characterized by terror, with global ‘terrorists’, the war on terror, and the constant state of war to which the world has been exposed. With this approach we can begin to study these facets to discover the significance of the cultural phenomenon separately from the Vietnam War as well. Also, through the study of these separate social and cultural factors a set of causal relationships is established, showing that the exportation of free markets and parliamentary democracy contributed to the eruption of the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War caused cultural turmoil to produce the fidelity. Examining these relationships may lead to other causes which would provide deeper understanding of the fidelity (and, subsequently, those who have entered it as well). Nevertheless, some level of unknown will always be associated with the Vietnam War due to its highly entangled nature with culture. Certain aspects will never be understood, perhaps because the event will always be un-nameable. If the areas we can explore are not studied, and the cultural production that created our current moment is not understood, we risk the cost of this ignorance. By exploring what we can know, it is possible to eliminate existence in the constant state of war and terror that characterizes the present historical moment and the associated consequences. Although I have shown that the Vietnam War is not the Badiouian event, I hope that new historicist critics will begin to research music, drug culture, sub-cultural movements and political aspects. New historicist critics need to examine other areas of cultural production because this paper merely serves to introduce a new historicist approach and to display the war as Badiouian Evil. In other work, new historicists and cultural anthropologists can examine areas of the fidelity that I have not included, such as economic factors and cultural production that influenced the creation of the current historical moment.
“As memory is central to the creation and maintenance of community, ‘when members of a community…lose their common objects of memory, they have difficulty maintaining a common ground…common memories allow a political culture to...imagine its future’ Since Vietnam it has become much more difficult to imagine a common future.”
Ray Pratt “There Must Be Some Way Outta Here!”; April 30, 2007 1:49 PM

Movement of Movements

Contributors

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Cyborg: Seminar (15pp/20min) Weeks 12-16

2 Comments: