Radical?
I've just finished reading The World Turned Upsidedown by Christopher Hill, a study of radicalism in the mid 17th century and I've just started reading Customs in Common, a study of 18th century plebian culture. The former includes such radical groups as the Quakers, Ranters and Levellers many of whom had constructed radical and revolutionary oppositional ideologies to those provided by state and church, the latter, so far anyway, are no less passive when it comes to the wrongs of society but are certainly less ideologically driven and therefore have less scope to their activity. While the 17th century radicals were pro-active, the tendency for the 18th century plebs appears to have been generally responsive.
Amongst the former, for example, Gerrard Winstanley, developed communist ideas that Karl Marx would have been proud of (even though he claimed they were divinely inspired, which I imagine Marx would have been less impressed with). Amongst the more mature views expressed were those that called for universal suffrage and equality between the sexes. If we take the 18th century plebs, even though their culture developed its own forms of resistance, it never assumed a conscious ideological form, even if wife-swapping and rough music managed to piss off the gentry.
Why? Well, I hypothesize that our 17th century radicals were the outcome of over a century of major social upheaval, Martin Luther and Protestantism, the Reformation and finally the English Civil War and effective anti-monarchical sentiment. Change was the name of the era and as such it seemed genuinely possible that the existing social order would be turned on its head. The possibility of extreme social revolution seems to have bred increasingly active radical activity. Our 18th century plebians however were born into an era of relative stability, a restored monarchy and a balanced political climate. It wasn't as though there weren't abuses in the 18th century, far from it, but until the late 18th early 19th century a general equilibrium seems to have been established, in Britain anyway.
Does this latter scenario sound familiar? Maybe we've just been born in the wrong era (see what I mean) and our alternative culture simply devises it's own versions of wife swapping and rough music (like er.... rough music). So we've been left with what cultural studies types would call 'resistance' (I think that was Foucault's chestnut). A term I personally hate, because the word resistance should mean so much more. Its suggestion that any activity contrary to the norm deserves elevation to an act of political relevance is as ridiculous as it is desperate. While I'd be the first person to say that in stable social climates the locus of political activity often takes place in the minutiae of life, it doesn't mean all this activity is worthy of navel gazing self righteousness.
Maybe that's why we get up to stuff like this... artists....
Amongst the former, for example, Gerrard Winstanley, developed communist ideas that Karl Marx would have been proud of (even though he claimed they were divinely inspired, which I imagine Marx would have been less impressed with). Amongst the more mature views expressed were those that called for universal suffrage and equality between the sexes. If we take the 18th century plebs, even though their culture developed its own forms of resistance, it never assumed a conscious ideological form, even if wife-swapping and rough music managed to piss off the gentry.
Why? Well, I hypothesize that our 17th century radicals were the outcome of over a century of major social upheaval, Martin Luther and Protestantism, the Reformation and finally the English Civil War and effective anti-monarchical sentiment. Change was the name of the era and as such it seemed genuinely possible that the existing social order would be turned on its head. The possibility of extreme social revolution seems to have bred increasingly active radical activity. Our 18th century plebians however were born into an era of relative stability, a restored monarchy and a balanced political climate. It wasn't as though there weren't abuses in the 18th century, far from it, but until the late 18th early 19th century a general equilibrium seems to have been established, in Britain anyway.
Does this latter scenario sound familiar? Maybe we've just been born in the wrong era (see what I mean) and our alternative culture simply devises it's own versions of wife swapping and rough music (like er.... rough music). So we've been left with what cultural studies types would call 'resistance' (I think that was Foucault's chestnut). A term I personally hate, because the word resistance should mean so much more. Its suggestion that any activity contrary to the norm deserves elevation to an act of political relevance is as ridiculous as it is desperate. While I'd be the first person to say that in stable social climates the locus of political activity often takes place in the minutiae of life, it doesn't mean all this activity is worthy of navel gazing self righteousness.
Maybe that's why we get up to stuff like this... artists....
posted by Nick at 11:04 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home