On human nature - Part 2
04/09/08 17:48 Filed in: Human Nature | Philosophy
There’s been a healthy debate raging down in the comments section of my earlier posts that has been getting fiery and passionate. All sorts of things have been rearing their heads down there from behavioural genetics to biopsychology, philosophical dualism, moral dichotomies, nihilism, post-modernism and debates about the nature of the question itself.
We’ve been going all over the place!
One argument went that the manifestation, complexity and multiplicity of human differences suggests that there can be no basis for suggesting any universal, underlying trait of goodness within human nature.
The word “goodness” has been a very emotive term! The word did not have to be “goodness”. It could have been several words like a “desire for a better life”. I preferred those words, since it’s easier to describe what underlying traits might represent “a better life” (for us all) than it is to say what goodness is.
The problem I had with this idea was that if I accepted it, I would slide into some black hole of moral nihilism, and I don’t want to go there, nor does anyone else I have ever known.
What is even more frightening to me is that it’s exactly this nihilistic view of humankind that supports religions everywhere…that we are all "sinners" who need to be "saved" from ourselves.
I strongly identify with the view of life that Chomsky expounds: one where I might feel autonomy, freedom, and work with others in voluntary association and without oppression, which means without economic repression too.
How do you feel? Do you not want that? Would anyone who understood what it meant not want it too?
On the point of religions, I believe that humans at a certain stage of their development took parables of wisdom and turned them into religions. Why? Because they didn’t have TV and stories by word-of-mouth were the way they communicated wisdom. Why? Because they desired and craved the goodness or the better life these stories talked about. The stories are totally unbelievable, yet men and women wanted what they promised so badly they reified them as objects of worship. They still do.
Religions of one sort or another have covered our entire planet, even in the most primitive societies, where they have worshipped totems or the elements. I don’t want to get into religious debate here. But the underlying attraction of religion, I would argue, is humankind’s overwhelming desire for a better life. Thus, I believe that desire to be an innate trait of human nature common to many throughout the world, and not simply part of western culture.
More soon...
We’ve been going all over the place!
One argument went that the manifestation, complexity and multiplicity of human differences suggests that there can be no basis for suggesting any universal, underlying trait of goodness within human nature.
The word “goodness” has been a very emotive term! The word did not have to be “goodness”. It could have been several words like a “desire for a better life”. I preferred those words, since it’s easier to describe what underlying traits might represent “a better life” (for us all) than it is to say what goodness is.
The problem I had with this idea was that if I accepted it, I would slide into some black hole of moral nihilism, and I don’t want to go there, nor does anyone else I have ever known.
What is even more frightening to me is that it’s exactly this nihilistic view of humankind that supports religions everywhere…that we are all "sinners" who need to be "saved" from ourselves.
I strongly identify with the view of life that Chomsky expounds: one where I might feel autonomy, freedom, and work with others in voluntary association and without oppression, which means without economic repression too.
How do you feel? Do you not want that? Would anyone who understood what it meant not want it too?
On the point of religions, I believe that humans at a certain stage of their development took parables of wisdom and turned them into religions. Why? Because they didn’t have TV and stories by word-of-mouth were the way they communicated wisdom. Why? Because they desired and craved the goodness or the better life these stories talked about. The stories are totally unbelievable, yet men and women wanted what they promised so badly they reified them as objects of worship. They still do.
Religions of one sort or another have covered our entire planet, even in the most primitive societies, where they have worshipped totems or the elements. I don’t want to get into religious debate here. But the underlying attraction of religion, I would argue, is humankind’s overwhelming desire for a better life. Thus, I believe that desire to be an innate trait of human nature common to many throughout the world, and not simply part of western culture.
More soon...
|
On human nature...
03/09/08 21:02 Filed in: Philosophy | Human Nature
I'm going to give my words a rest now. What follows are some extracts from an interview with Noam Chomsky on human nature, many of whose views I respect.
I like it, since it engages the debate on my last post, and provides a bridge between my ideas and those of Melinda whose views I also respect.
In the meantime, I'm going to put my thinking cap on and try and work out where I go from here!
This interview is Copyright © 2006 Noam Chomsky
QUESTION: You have argued that any stance one takes on political, economic, social or even personal issues is ultimately based on some conception of human nature. Why is this?
CHOMSKY: Any stance we take is based on some conception of what is good for people. This conception will tacitly presuppose a certain belief as to the constitution of human nature -- human needs and human potential. You might as well bring them out as clearly as possible so that they can be discussed.
QUESTION: According to your view of human nature, all human beings possess certain biological functions endowing them with common mental capacities. How do you defend this position against postmodernist critics who argue that there is no such thing as human nature, and that all attempts to define it are guilty of reading other cultures in the light of Western perceptions and values?
CHOMSKY: Not even the most extreme postmodernist can seriously argue that there is no such thing as human nature. They may argue that the exact properties of human nature are difficult to substantiate -- this is certainly correct. However, it is impossible to coherently argue that an intrinsic, universal human nature does not exist. This amounts to the belief that the next human zygote conceived might just as well develop into a worm or a crab as a human being. Postmodernists might limit their assertion to denying any effect of human nature on our mental make-up -- our values, our knowledge, our wants, etc. This also makes no sense. The postmodernist will argue that a child growing up in New York will develop a certain way of thinking, and if that child had grown up amongst Amazon tribespeople she would have developed a completely different way of thinking. This is true. But we must then ask how a child could develop these different consciousnesses. In whatever environment it finds itself, the child will mentally construct a rich and complex culture on the basis of the extremely scattered and limited phenomena it is exposed to. That consideration tells us (in advance of any detailed knowledge) that there must be an extraordinary directive and organisational component to the mind that is internal. We can begin to see human nature in terms of certain capacities to develop certain mental traits. I think we can go further than this and begin to discover universal aspects of these mental traits which are determined by human nature. I think we can find this in the area of morality. For example, not long ago I talked to people in Amazon tribes and I took it for granted that they have the same conception of vice and virtue as I do. It is only through sharing these values that we were able to interact -- talking about real problems such as being forced out of the jungle by the state authorities. I believe I was correct to assume this: we had no problem communicating although we were as remote as is possible culturally.
QUESTION: Are you suggesting everyone agrees about the nature of vice and virtue?
CHOMSKY: In fact I think they probably have a very high measure of agreement. One strong bit of evidence for this is that everyone -- a Genghis Khan, Himmler, Bill Gates -- creates stories of themselves where they interpret their actions as working for the benefit of human beings. Even at the extreme levels of depravity, the Nazis did not boast that they wanted to kill Jews, but gave crazed justifications -- even that they were acting in 'self-defence'. It is very rare for people to justify their actions by saying 'I'm doing this to maximise my own benefit and I don't care what happens to anybody else'. That would be pathological.
QUESTION: Most people certainly try to offer moral justifications for what they do. But there is also enormous diversity in what they do, and defend as right to do.
CHOMSKY: And there is a lot of variation in people's size. Take a walk through a museum where they have the armour from medieval knights and just look at the size of them: you could barely put a child into that armour. We have the same genes today as people did then, but we are very different because there have been radical changes in diet. This is characteristic of every aspect of organic development. Hence we should not be in the least surprised to discover that it is also characteristic of our social nature, our moral positions and so on. We are biological creatures.
QUESTION: But I think you would agree that not all cultures are equally viable from the standpoint of promoting human fulfilment and wellbeing? Are you wanting to argue that your understanding of human nature can give us a kind of objective understanding of the conditions of human flourishing?
CHOMSKY: Now we're taking an essentialist position which the relativist would contradict. I'm not willing to go that far. We can develop a stronger conception of human nature through drawing on Enlightenment thinking on the issue. This has support from some of the sciences, but is mainly founded on a philosophical investigation into our hopes, intuition and experience, and an examination of history and cultural variety. There are needs for conditions which allow the flourishing of human capacities. Insights from the Enlightenment show us that people need to exist in free association with others -- not in isolation, and not in relations of domination. There is a need to replace social fetters with social bonds. Therefore any social structure that involves relations of domination -- whether it's the family, a trans-national corporation, gender relations -- has a very heavy burden of proof to bear. It must demonstrate that the benefits it provides outweigh the restrictions it imposes on human capacities. If it can't demonstrate its legitimacy, it should be dismantled.
QUESTION: Right. Can I ask you about your position on the possibility of ecological constraints on the realisation of human needs? Do you think -- even if there were the political will to achieve it -- that it might be impossible, for ecological reasons, to provide the necessary conditions for continued human flourishing?
CHOMSKY: Humans may well be a non-viable organism.
QUESTION: Do you think they are?
CHOMSKY: It's very likely. From an evolutionary point of view, higher intelligence seems to be maladaptive rather than adaptive. Biologically successful organisms have a rigid character and are well adapted to a certain environmental niche. If higher intelligence helped adaptation you would expect it to have arisen over and over again. However, it didn't. It arose in a single, not particularly successful organism, Homo Sapiens. And while the human population exploded, human societies developed in a way that has caused enormous damage to the environment. The human race could destroy itself and much organic life as a result.
QUESTION: Do you think that different social and economic circumstances either block or reinforce certain dispositions -- that, for example, whatever there might be in the way of a natural tendency towards selfish and aggressive behaviour is reinforced by the capitalist market society?
CHOMSKY: There's no doubt about it. Let's take Germany, for example. In the early 20th century Germany was the most advanced area of Western culture -- in music, the arts, science. In the passage of a few years, it entered the absolute depths of human history. Small changes in German society allowed people like Joseph Mengele to flourish rather than people like Einstein and Freud. The market is a radical experiment which violated fundamental human needs and capacities. You can see this in the violent struggles that were required to impose market conditions on people. In the United States, for example, about one sixth of the gross national product, over a trillion dollars per year, is devoted to marketing. Marketing is manipulation and deceit. It tries to turn people into something they aren't -- individuals focused solely on themselves, maximising their consumption of goods that they don't need.
QUESTION: Granted the truth of what you say about our distinctively human capacities for freedom and co-operative action, how come we are so open to that kind of manipulation and deceit? How come we remain both globally and locally so caught up in oppression?
CHOMSKY: It's a serious question. Why are we born free and end up enslaved?
QUESTION: Is there a case here for viewing social factors as more determinant than biological factors?
CHOMSKY: You can't say which factor is more decisive. They interact. Take the example of puberty: small changes in nutrition can modify the onset of puberty by a factor of two, or even terminate it altogether. Or the visual system: in a kitten you can destroy the neural basis for vision simply by not presenting pattern stimulation in the first couple of weeks of its life. However, does this mean that the environment is the decisive force? No. Puberty is a process which human beings undergo at a particular stage of maturation because that's the way they've been designed. You don't undergo puberty because of peer pressure. Likewise, human limbs will not develop into wings rather than arms or legs. The genetic component determines strict limits within which variation is possible. I believe the same is true of our social and mental development.
QUESTION: Your ultimate political goal is anarchistic, the erosion of state institutions and any form of authoritarian control. But you have also recognised the need to defend some forms of state regulation as protection against a wholly unregulated market. Can you say more on how you view this two-edged process of possible political transformation?
CHOMSKY: I'm not in favour of people being in cages. On the other hand I think people ought to be in cages if there's a sabre-toothed tiger wandering around outside and if they go out of the cage the sabre-toothed tiger will kill them. So sometimes there's a justification for cages. That doesn't mean cages are good things. State power is a good example of a necessary cage. There are sabre-toothed tigers outside; they are called trans-national corporations which are among the most tyrannical totalitarian institutions that human society has devised. And there is a cage, namely the state, which to some extent is under popular control. The cage is protecting people from predatory tyrannies so there is a temporary need to maintain the cage, and even to extend the cage.
QUESTION: How do you see the relationship between work and free time in a more liberated society?
CHOMSKY: Polls in the US, Germany and elsewhere have shown that people value free time over material goods. Therefore, there are major propaganda efforts to reverse this. One reason over a trillion dollars a year is spent on marketing in the USA is to try to undermine our natural tendency to want free, liberated time.
I like it, since it engages the debate on my last post, and provides a bridge between my ideas and those of Melinda whose views I also respect.
In the meantime, I'm going to put my thinking cap on and try and work out where I go from here!
This interview is Copyright © 2006 Noam Chomsky
QUESTION: You have argued that any stance one takes on political, economic, social or even personal issues is ultimately based on some conception of human nature. Why is this?
CHOMSKY: Any stance we take is based on some conception of what is good for people. This conception will tacitly presuppose a certain belief as to the constitution of human nature -- human needs and human potential. You might as well bring them out as clearly as possible so that they can be discussed.
QUESTION: According to your view of human nature, all human beings possess certain biological functions endowing them with common mental capacities. How do you defend this position against postmodernist critics who argue that there is no such thing as human nature, and that all attempts to define it are guilty of reading other cultures in the light of Western perceptions and values?
CHOMSKY: Not even the most extreme postmodernist can seriously argue that there is no such thing as human nature. They may argue that the exact properties of human nature are difficult to substantiate -- this is certainly correct. However, it is impossible to coherently argue that an intrinsic, universal human nature does not exist. This amounts to the belief that the next human zygote conceived might just as well develop into a worm or a crab as a human being. Postmodernists might limit their assertion to denying any effect of human nature on our mental make-up -- our values, our knowledge, our wants, etc. This also makes no sense. The postmodernist will argue that a child growing up in New York will develop a certain way of thinking, and if that child had grown up amongst Amazon tribespeople she would have developed a completely different way of thinking. This is true. But we must then ask how a child could develop these different consciousnesses. In whatever environment it finds itself, the child will mentally construct a rich and complex culture on the basis of the extremely scattered and limited phenomena it is exposed to. That consideration tells us (in advance of any detailed knowledge) that there must be an extraordinary directive and organisational component to the mind that is internal. We can begin to see human nature in terms of certain capacities to develop certain mental traits. I think we can go further than this and begin to discover universal aspects of these mental traits which are determined by human nature. I think we can find this in the area of morality. For example, not long ago I talked to people in Amazon tribes and I took it for granted that they have the same conception of vice and virtue as I do. It is only through sharing these values that we were able to interact -- talking about real problems such as being forced out of the jungle by the state authorities. I believe I was correct to assume this: we had no problem communicating although we were as remote as is possible culturally.
QUESTION: Are you suggesting everyone agrees about the nature of vice and virtue?
CHOMSKY: In fact I think they probably have a very high measure of agreement. One strong bit of evidence for this is that everyone -- a Genghis Khan, Himmler, Bill Gates -- creates stories of themselves where they interpret their actions as working for the benefit of human beings. Even at the extreme levels of depravity, the Nazis did not boast that they wanted to kill Jews, but gave crazed justifications -- even that they were acting in 'self-defence'. It is very rare for people to justify their actions by saying 'I'm doing this to maximise my own benefit and I don't care what happens to anybody else'. That would be pathological.
QUESTION: Most people certainly try to offer moral justifications for what they do. But there is also enormous diversity in what they do, and defend as right to do.
CHOMSKY: And there is a lot of variation in people's size. Take a walk through a museum where they have the armour from medieval knights and just look at the size of them: you could barely put a child into that armour. We have the same genes today as people did then, but we are very different because there have been radical changes in diet. This is characteristic of every aspect of organic development. Hence we should not be in the least surprised to discover that it is also characteristic of our social nature, our moral positions and so on. We are biological creatures.
QUESTION: But I think you would agree that not all cultures are equally viable from the standpoint of promoting human fulfilment and wellbeing? Are you wanting to argue that your understanding of human nature can give us a kind of objective understanding of the conditions of human flourishing?
CHOMSKY: Now we're taking an essentialist position which the relativist would contradict. I'm not willing to go that far. We can develop a stronger conception of human nature through drawing on Enlightenment thinking on the issue. This has support from some of the sciences, but is mainly founded on a philosophical investigation into our hopes, intuition and experience, and an examination of history and cultural variety. There are needs for conditions which allow the flourishing of human capacities. Insights from the Enlightenment show us that people need to exist in free association with others -- not in isolation, and not in relations of domination. There is a need to replace social fetters with social bonds. Therefore any social structure that involves relations of domination -- whether it's the family, a trans-national corporation, gender relations -- has a very heavy burden of proof to bear. It must demonstrate that the benefits it provides outweigh the restrictions it imposes on human capacities. If it can't demonstrate its legitimacy, it should be dismantled.
QUESTION: Right. Can I ask you about your position on the possibility of ecological constraints on the realisation of human needs? Do you think -- even if there were the political will to achieve it -- that it might be impossible, for ecological reasons, to provide the necessary conditions for continued human flourishing?
CHOMSKY: Humans may well be a non-viable organism.
QUESTION: Do you think they are?
CHOMSKY: It's very likely. From an evolutionary point of view, higher intelligence seems to be maladaptive rather than adaptive. Biologically successful organisms have a rigid character and are well adapted to a certain environmental niche. If higher intelligence helped adaptation you would expect it to have arisen over and over again. However, it didn't. It arose in a single, not particularly successful organism, Homo Sapiens. And while the human population exploded, human societies developed in a way that has caused enormous damage to the environment. The human race could destroy itself and much organic life as a result.
QUESTION: Do you think that different social and economic circumstances either block or reinforce certain dispositions -- that, for example, whatever there might be in the way of a natural tendency towards selfish and aggressive behaviour is reinforced by the capitalist market society?
CHOMSKY: There's no doubt about it. Let's take Germany, for example. In the early 20th century Germany was the most advanced area of Western culture -- in music, the arts, science. In the passage of a few years, it entered the absolute depths of human history. Small changes in German society allowed people like Joseph Mengele to flourish rather than people like Einstein and Freud. The market is a radical experiment which violated fundamental human needs and capacities. You can see this in the violent struggles that were required to impose market conditions on people. In the United States, for example, about one sixth of the gross national product, over a trillion dollars per year, is devoted to marketing. Marketing is manipulation and deceit. It tries to turn people into something they aren't -- individuals focused solely on themselves, maximising their consumption of goods that they don't need.
QUESTION: Granted the truth of what you say about our distinctively human capacities for freedom and co-operative action, how come we are so open to that kind of manipulation and deceit? How come we remain both globally and locally so caught up in oppression?
CHOMSKY: It's a serious question. Why are we born free and end up enslaved?
QUESTION: Is there a case here for viewing social factors as more determinant than biological factors?
CHOMSKY: You can't say which factor is more decisive. They interact. Take the example of puberty: small changes in nutrition can modify the onset of puberty by a factor of two, or even terminate it altogether. Or the visual system: in a kitten you can destroy the neural basis for vision simply by not presenting pattern stimulation in the first couple of weeks of its life. However, does this mean that the environment is the decisive force? No. Puberty is a process which human beings undergo at a particular stage of maturation because that's the way they've been designed. You don't undergo puberty because of peer pressure. Likewise, human limbs will not develop into wings rather than arms or legs. The genetic component determines strict limits within which variation is possible. I believe the same is true of our social and mental development.
QUESTION: Your ultimate political goal is anarchistic, the erosion of state institutions and any form of authoritarian control. But you have also recognised the need to defend some forms of state regulation as protection against a wholly unregulated market. Can you say more on how you view this two-edged process of possible political transformation?
CHOMSKY: I'm not in favour of people being in cages. On the other hand I think people ought to be in cages if there's a sabre-toothed tiger wandering around outside and if they go out of the cage the sabre-toothed tiger will kill them. So sometimes there's a justification for cages. That doesn't mean cages are good things. State power is a good example of a necessary cage. There are sabre-toothed tigers outside; they are called trans-national corporations which are among the most tyrannical totalitarian institutions that human society has devised. And there is a cage, namely the state, which to some extent is under popular control. The cage is protecting people from predatory tyrannies so there is a temporary need to maintain the cage, and even to extend the cage.
QUESTION: How do you see the relationship between work and free time in a more liberated society?
CHOMSKY: Polls in the US, Germany and elsewhere have shown that people value free time over material goods. Therefore, there are major propaganda efforts to reverse this. One reason over a trillion dollars a year is spent on marketing in the USA is to try to undermine our natural tendency to want free, liberated time.
Does human nature exist?
01/09/08 20:35 Filed in: Philosophy | Human Nature
I’m through with writing social critiques right now. I’m done with determinism too, saying that we are all such weak injured souls because this or that power elite causes us to be so.
I’ve been thinking about change: What we would need to do in order to make the world a better place to live in.
In looking at social and political philosophy there is one question on which all this stuff seems to hinge. I’m not entirely sure that I believe the question in a way, but it’s about the state of human nature itself and what of us is innately human.
So what is human nature? Do humans seek autonomy, freedom and is their nature predisposed towards moral good, an innate desire for a better world or is that some philosopher’s intellectual desire? There are many theories of human nature that appear so ethnocentrically and culturally biased that I would dismiss them out of hand.
Inevitably theories of human nature tend to be predicated on individualist ideas coming from a liberal tradition. I’m not sure if they go anywhere, nor do right or left political views. The left takes us towards the authoritarian state more often than not and these days, the right veers towards laissez faire capitalism that is laissez faire so long as they control it. Free market competition produces winners and losers, and often the winners are the same and there are an awful lot of losers out there. The further left or right one seems to go, the more likely one is to end up with totalitarianism.
But my question is about people. Is there really such a thing as human nature, OR do we live within a consciousness that contains moral values that change and shift as our collective consciousness develops? Development can be disjointed, fractured by revolution and not conform to any Darwinist evolutionary notion. Consciousness may sustain badness as well as good, but I believe that the underlying desire of consciousness is towards social improvement fuelled by humankind’s desire to survive and little more. Survival, like hunger, is a strong natural instinct.
The marketing guys, the media, advertising, and the world of politics know all about consciousness. Their aim is frequently to manipulate it to their own ends or those of their controlling shareholders.
The question of human nature has dogged philosophical, social and political thought forever, but what do you believe? Does it really exist?
I’ve been thinking about change: What we would need to do in order to make the world a better place to live in.
In looking at social and political philosophy there is one question on which all this stuff seems to hinge. I’m not entirely sure that I believe the question in a way, but it’s about the state of human nature itself and what of us is innately human.
So what is human nature? Do humans seek autonomy, freedom and is their nature predisposed towards moral good, an innate desire for a better world or is that some philosopher’s intellectual desire? There are many theories of human nature that appear so ethnocentrically and culturally biased that I would dismiss them out of hand.
Inevitably theories of human nature tend to be predicated on individualist ideas coming from a liberal tradition. I’m not sure if they go anywhere, nor do right or left political views. The left takes us towards the authoritarian state more often than not and these days, the right veers towards laissez faire capitalism that is laissez faire so long as they control it. Free market competition produces winners and losers, and often the winners are the same and there are an awful lot of losers out there. The further left or right one seems to go, the more likely one is to end up with totalitarianism.
But my question is about people. Is there really such a thing as human nature, OR do we live within a consciousness that contains moral values that change and shift as our collective consciousness develops? Development can be disjointed, fractured by revolution and not conform to any Darwinist evolutionary notion. Consciousness may sustain badness as well as good, but I believe that the underlying desire of consciousness is towards social improvement fuelled by humankind’s desire to survive and little more. Survival, like hunger, is a strong natural instinct.
The marketing guys, the media, advertising, and the world of politics know all about consciousness. Their aim is frequently to manipulate it to their own ends or those of their controlling shareholders.
The question of human nature has dogged philosophical, social and political thought forever, but what do you believe? Does it really exist?
Where in the world do you belong?
28/08/08 19:31 Filed in: Nationalism
Frequently, I sit down to write a blog posting then end up writing something other than which I intended originally. Today might be one of those days!
The other day, I received an email message off the bottom of the page here, from someone who had been reading my blogs.
It made me crease up with laughter and may have something to do with why many other nations in the world think of the English as pompous or arrogant. He was English. He wrote, “You write well for an American…” I decided to play him along for a while, for the sheer sport and fun of doing so. But it made me think about what I feel and think about the world I inhabit, and whether I feel a strong sense of belonging to somewhere other than the world in general.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am British, English to be precise. That is how my passport defines me. I also hold a green card and have US rights of residency. I love many things English. I have family and friends there too. But going back to my blog commentator, I have very strong attachments to the USA and to France where I live presently.
My attachment to the USA runs deep, since there live two young people, three now, one of whom, Meagan, shares my beliefs and my values about the world, uses my vocabulary, has an American accent and calls me Dad! There is also a very new young citizen of the world called Eva who calls me Grandpa. Goodness, does that make me feel old! (You can see them here. I feel so very proud of these young people who I brought up in the world.) Those bonds of love mean far more than any sense of national identity to me. Those young people, their world, their wellbeing and their future cause me to feel passionately about what happens in the USA as well as Europe.
If I reflect fully on my own background, it makes nonsense of any form of nationalism. I have more living family relatives in Canada than I do in the UK. I have other family relatives scattered throughout Europe and beyond.
So what's this about? It’s a prologue to my next post.
I've been thinking about a question I often ask myself when I’m being critical. It goes, “Okay, so now you’ve told us what you're against, but what are you for?”
I’ve written many blog posts that are critical of the economic and social systems that exist in our world right now. I have a very incomplete, maybe badly thought through, patchy idea of some better way of doing things. It’s so half-baked that any social and political philosopher might drill holes through it at a distance of a hundred miles. In the comments on my last post, we talked about a minimal state and a new role for communities. But it made me think. What would my community look like when it crosses so many national boundaries? What do national boundaries mean other than being a line in the earth? What real purpose do they serve? Might the world be better without them?
What do you say?
The other day, I received an email message off the bottom of the page here, from someone who had been reading my blogs.
It made me crease up with laughter and may have something to do with why many other nations in the world think of the English as pompous or arrogant. He was English. He wrote, “You write well for an American…” I decided to play him along for a while, for the sheer sport and fun of doing so. But it made me think about what I feel and think about the world I inhabit, and whether I feel a strong sense of belonging to somewhere other than the world in general.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am British, English to be precise. That is how my passport defines me. I also hold a green card and have US rights of residency. I love many things English. I have family and friends there too. But going back to my blog commentator, I have very strong attachments to the USA and to France where I live presently.
My attachment to the USA runs deep, since there live two young people, three now, one of whom, Meagan, shares my beliefs and my values about the world, uses my vocabulary, has an American accent and calls me Dad! There is also a very new young citizen of the world called Eva who calls me Grandpa. Goodness, does that make me feel old! (You can see them here. I feel so very proud of these young people who I brought up in the world.) Those bonds of love mean far more than any sense of national identity to me. Those young people, their world, their wellbeing and their future cause me to feel passionately about what happens in the USA as well as Europe.
If I reflect fully on my own background, it makes nonsense of any form of nationalism. I have more living family relatives in Canada than I do in the UK. I have other family relatives scattered throughout Europe and beyond.
So what's this about? It’s a prologue to my next post.
I've been thinking about a question I often ask myself when I’m being critical. It goes, “Okay, so now you’ve told us what you're against, but what are you for?”
I’ve written many blog posts that are critical of the economic and social systems that exist in our world right now. I have a very incomplete, maybe badly thought through, patchy idea of some better way of doing things. It’s so half-baked that any social and political philosopher might drill holes through it at a distance of a hundred miles. In the comments on my last post, we talked about a minimal state and a new role for communities. But it made me think. What would my community look like when it crosses so many national boundaries? What do national boundaries mean other than being a line in the earth? What real purpose do they serve? Might the world be better without them?
What do you say?
Economics may be bad for your health! - Part 2
Benefits of economic growth
Economic growth has long been the goal of conventional economics and politics. It is both the prize and the credo that governs our daily lives. I am unsure as to whether infinite growth is either achievable, sustainable, or for that matter desirable or beneficial to society as a whole.
The arguments in its favour go something like this:
1. Increased consumption is good for you! Greater consumption equals greater prosperity. The economic assumption is that consumption is related to utility, where utility is a measure of the relative satisfaction from or desirability of the consumption of goods. Put very crudely, greater consumption is a measure of success, wealth and good fortune.
2. Increased earnings means increased taxation that in turn creates better healthcare, education and welfare services (or some cynics might say, more money to spend on wars!).
3. Economic growth creates jobs. Higher employment means less poverty. This is something of a fallacy. In some parts of Europe, including where I live in France, there is something called “structural unemployment” that is brought about by structural changes in the underlying needs of the local economy and the geographical distribution and concentrations of the population. In short, there is a mismatch between people living in a place and the employment opportunities available to them there, that is only capable of remedy over time, usually long periods of time.
That’s the theory, at least!
So what’s the problem?
1. Is infinite economic growth sustainable or desirable?
I read a report last year by an economist who predicted that very soon the world's manufacturing capacity will outstrip its ability of consumption. Simply put that means soon we will be able to make more than we need or can ever hope to use. So what happens then?
If you have a house, two cars and all the other things you need, why would you want to own more houses, or three cars, or even two washing machines? Infinite growth in consumption makes no sense. Does increased ownership lead to greater utility or satisfaction? Of course, it does not and there is a law of diminishing returns when people have more money than things to spend it on. That is to say, the utility of ownership diminishes, and when that happens so does the value of goods, which in turn creates more economic pressures.
For sections of the population who experience dire poverty and unemployment, economic growth may provide a remedy, but the evidence is that high economic growth can cause greater inequality and a real increase in relative poverty (Brookings Institution 2007), since it is the better educated and already wealthy that tend to benefit from economic growth rather than the less well off.
2. Damage to the environment through increased pollution that is a consequence of economic growth is becoming a real problem for the entire world. Of course, a benefit of growth might be the investment in technologies that create less pollution. To-date this appears to have been viewed as a lower priority than the pursuit of wealth for its own sake.
3. Increased inequality gives rise to more crimes and social problems. Between 1960 and 1990 the US crime rate went up by some 300%. While crime rates in the USA may have peaked out now, there is nevertheless a strong correlation between economic growth and increasing crime rates.
4. High economic growth is a slave-driver and has led to longer hours worked with a commensurate increase in personal and social anxiety. An economist might argue that this reflects the fact that people value money more than leisure or quality of life. How would they know when they have no leisure? That takes me to my next point…
5. The American Medical Association maintains that stress is a significant determinant in 80% of all our illnesses (that is not to say it’s the only cause). It could be argued that heart disease, obesity and stress related illnesses are a direct consequence of economic growth.
So what of increased prosperity? What of economic growth?
They have created as many new problems as they have solved.
It may be time to look for a better way.
I do not believe that politics holds all the answers either. Left-wing, right-wing or centrist mass politics have all shown themselves to be deeply flawed.
It is not something that the cult of the presidential individual can possibly apprehend. Barrack Obama or John McCain will make no difference, nor will Gordon Brown or Nicholas Sarkozy. I am unsure as to how well the ideology of nation states will serve the world in the long-term either.
One thing is for sure, if we want a better world, then we will all have to take responsibility for its wellbeing, all of us, without exception. That is the underlying principal of true democracy that we claim to hold so dear. It is not enough, as we have in the past, to argue for political freedom alone; there is social, personal and psychological freedom to consider too.
Economic growth is not the Holy Grail.
So what next?
Economic growth has long been the goal of conventional economics and politics. It is both the prize and the credo that governs our daily lives. I am unsure as to whether infinite growth is either achievable, sustainable, or for that matter desirable or beneficial to society as a whole.
The arguments in its favour go something like this:
1. Increased consumption is good for you! Greater consumption equals greater prosperity. The economic assumption is that consumption is related to utility, where utility is a measure of the relative satisfaction from or desirability of the consumption of goods. Put very crudely, greater consumption is a measure of success, wealth and good fortune.
2. Increased earnings means increased taxation that in turn creates better healthcare, education and welfare services (or some cynics might say, more money to spend on wars!).
3. Economic growth creates jobs. Higher employment means less poverty. This is something of a fallacy. In some parts of Europe, including where I live in France, there is something called “structural unemployment” that is brought about by structural changes in the underlying needs of the local economy and the geographical distribution and concentrations of the population. In short, there is a mismatch between people living in a place and the employment opportunities available to them there, that is only capable of remedy over time, usually long periods of time.
That’s the theory, at least!
So what’s the problem?
1. Is infinite economic growth sustainable or desirable?
I read a report last year by an economist who predicted that very soon the world's manufacturing capacity will outstrip its ability of consumption. Simply put that means soon we will be able to make more than we need or can ever hope to use. So what happens then?
If you have a house, two cars and all the other things you need, why would you want to own more houses, or three cars, or even two washing machines? Infinite growth in consumption makes no sense. Does increased ownership lead to greater utility or satisfaction? Of course, it does not and there is a law of diminishing returns when people have more money than things to spend it on. That is to say, the utility of ownership diminishes, and when that happens so does the value of goods, which in turn creates more economic pressures.
For sections of the population who experience dire poverty and unemployment, economic growth may provide a remedy, but the evidence is that high economic growth can cause greater inequality and a real increase in relative poverty (Brookings Institution 2007), since it is the better educated and already wealthy that tend to benefit from economic growth rather than the less well off.
2. Damage to the environment through increased pollution that is a consequence of economic growth is becoming a real problem for the entire world. Of course, a benefit of growth might be the investment in technologies that create less pollution. To-date this appears to have been viewed as a lower priority than the pursuit of wealth for its own sake.
3. Increased inequality gives rise to more crimes and social problems. Between 1960 and 1990 the US crime rate went up by some 300%. While crime rates in the USA may have peaked out now, there is nevertheless a strong correlation between economic growth and increasing crime rates.
4. High economic growth is a slave-driver and has led to longer hours worked with a commensurate increase in personal and social anxiety. An economist might argue that this reflects the fact that people value money more than leisure or quality of life. How would they know when they have no leisure? That takes me to my next point…
5. The American Medical Association maintains that stress is a significant determinant in 80% of all our illnesses (that is not to say it’s the only cause). It could be argued that heart disease, obesity and stress related illnesses are a direct consequence of economic growth.
So what of increased prosperity? What of economic growth?
They have created as many new problems as they have solved.
It may be time to look for a better way.
I do not believe that politics holds all the answers either. Left-wing, right-wing or centrist mass politics have all shown themselves to be deeply flawed.
It is not something that the cult of the presidential individual can possibly apprehend. Barrack Obama or John McCain will make no difference, nor will Gordon Brown or Nicholas Sarkozy. I am unsure as to how well the ideology of nation states will serve the world in the long-term either.
One thing is for sure, if we want a better world, then we will all have to take responsibility for its wellbeing, all of us, without exception. That is the underlying principal of true democracy that we claim to hold so dear. It is not enough, as we have in the past, to argue for political freedom alone; there is social, personal and psychological freedom to consider too.
Economic growth is not the Holy Grail.
So what next?
Economics may be bad for your health! - Part 1
Recession! What recession?
So what is this new economic crisis? Are we moving towards the Armageddon of western economics? What does and will recession mean?
Economists define recession as a decline in the production of gross domestic product for six-months based on measures taken in two three month periods.
Neither the USA nor the UK are experiencing what is described as “negative growth” currently, although there is a widely held belief that we may be heading towards recession.
A lot of factors are being cited as the cause of our current economic difficulties, among which are:
1. The crash in the housing market.
The boom in the housing market was an absurd phenomenon.
House prices in the UK were rising at rates of more than six times the rate of inflation in some years.
Suddenly the world was awash with property millionaires. Someone who had bought a London house for £72,000 ($144,000) in 1983 and stayed put, woke up to find their property is worth £1.6 million in 2007! ($3.2 million). A new two bedroom apartment on the outskirts of Oxford, close to a railway line came onto the market last year at around £500,000 ($1 million). Think about it, one million dollars for a small apartment in a small city outside London!
The average age of a first time house buyer is currently somewhere in the mid-thirties age range. So where do the rest live? How do teachers, nurses, doctors, police and essential service staff ever afford these prices? The answer is they don’t.
It had to stop, and stop it did. House prices are going down in the UK. Economic reports from the USA say that house prices there are over-valued by at least 40%, although by UK standards house prices in the USA look dirt-cheap! Prices have fallen by up to 25% in the past year in (some parts of) the USA.
House price equity in an overblown, pumped-up market is fool’s gold. It is wealth created by a market without any corresponding new value. It has provided a mirage of prosperity by fuelling consumer spending and debt.
To put all this in perspective, the average house price in the UK (across all regions) is about £220k ($440k), the average salary is somewhere in the region of £22k - £26k ($44k - $52$k).
So people have taken risks with borrowing, sometimes taking out loans of between 8 and 10 times their annual salaries in order to own a home. It should come as no surprise therefore that the housing market is in deep trouble.
2. So-called high-risk lending, the “sub-prime” market is collapsing. Sub-prime lending involves lending money for greater returns to poorer people who would not otherwise be able to afford conventional home loans. It’s an economic contradiction that sustains poverty. If one is poor access to money comes at a higher price than if one is rich.
Falling house prices in the USA and to some extent, the UK, means a risk of negative home equity at a very high price. Home repossessions are increasing fast. There is an increasing rate of defaults that means that banks lose money and so do the mortgage companies.
3. So we have:
• Shortage of mortgage funding and banks teetering on the edge of solvency
• Decline in market confidence that affects all sectors of the economy
• Property prices that became vastly overvalued
• Increase in supply accompanying falling demand, with housing costs still running at levels in the UK that are inaccessible to average wage earners, young people and essential service providers
4. Next! There’s the ever-increasing oil price pushing up costs. There is the rising cost of food too that is not necessarily all tied to the cost of oil.
5. One more…the booming house price mirage fuelled consumer borrowing. A falling house market and lowered confidence in the rest of the economy means that people are taking on less debt and looking to save. This in turn means lower consumer spending. Lower consumer spending means lower production that increases the chance of a recession. It is interesting to me that that financial prudence, as I might see it, and a move away from consumption for consumption’s sake has an adverse economic consequence. I’ll come back to that in part 2.
Summary
There are a number of factors involved in our current economic difficulties, but the two main issues as I see them are the decline of an over-heated housing market and a decrease in consumer spending.
Part 2 will be about whether economic growth is beneficial to us all. My feelings are that it is not such a good thing after all. We may need to change the way we view our economic lives.
So what is this new economic crisis? Are we moving towards the Armageddon of western economics? What does and will recession mean?
Economists define recession as a decline in the production of gross domestic product for six-months based on measures taken in two three month periods.
Neither the USA nor the UK are experiencing what is described as “negative growth” currently, although there is a widely held belief that we may be heading towards recession.
A lot of factors are being cited as the cause of our current economic difficulties, among which are:
1. The crash in the housing market.
The boom in the housing market was an absurd phenomenon.
House prices in the UK were rising at rates of more than six times the rate of inflation in some years.
Suddenly the world was awash with property millionaires. Someone who had bought a London house for £72,000 ($144,000) in 1983 and stayed put, woke up to find their property is worth £1.6 million in 2007! ($3.2 million). A new two bedroom apartment on the outskirts of Oxford, close to a railway line came onto the market last year at around £500,000 ($1 million). Think about it, one million dollars for a small apartment in a small city outside London!
The average age of a first time house buyer is currently somewhere in the mid-thirties age range. So where do the rest live? How do teachers, nurses, doctors, police and essential service staff ever afford these prices? The answer is they don’t.
It had to stop, and stop it did. House prices are going down in the UK. Economic reports from the USA say that house prices there are over-valued by at least 40%, although by UK standards house prices in the USA look dirt-cheap! Prices have fallen by up to 25% in the past year in (some parts of) the USA.
House price equity in an overblown, pumped-up market is fool’s gold. It is wealth created by a market without any corresponding new value. It has provided a mirage of prosperity by fuelling consumer spending and debt.
To put all this in perspective, the average house price in the UK (across all regions) is about £220k ($440k), the average salary is somewhere in the region of £22k - £26k ($44k - $52$k).
So people have taken risks with borrowing, sometimes taking out loans of between 8 and 10 times their annual salaries in order to own a home. It should come as no surprise therefore that the housing market is in deep trouble.
2. So-called high-risk lending, the “sub-prime” market is collapsing. Sub-prime lending involves lending money for greater returns to poorer people who would not otherwise be able to afford conventional home loans. It’s an economic contradiction that sustains poverty. If one is poor access to money comes at a higher price than if one is rich.
Falling house prices in the USA and to some extent, the UK, means a risk of negative home equity at a very high price. Home repossessions are increasing fast. There is an increasing rate of defaults that means that banks lose money and so do the mortgage companies.
3. So we have:
• Shortage of mortgage funding and banks teetering on the edge of solvency
• Decline in market confidence that affects all sectors of the economy
• Property prices that became vastly overvalued
• Increase in supply accompanying falling demand, with housing costs still running at levels in the UK that are inaccessible to average wage earners, young people and essential service providers
4. Next! There’s the ever-increasing oil price pushing up costs. There is the rising cost of food too that is not necessarily all tied to the cost of oil.
5. One more…the booming house price mirage fuelled consumer borrowing. A falling house market and lowered confidence in the rest of the economy means that people are taking on less debt and looking to save. This in turn means lower consumer spending. Lower consumer spending means lower production that increases the chance of a recession. It is interesting to me that that financial prudence, as I might see it, and a move away from consumption for consumption’s sake has an adverse economic consequence. I’ll come back to that in part 2.
Summary
There are a number of factors involved in our current economic difficulties, but the two main issues as I see them are the decline of an over-heated housing market and a decrease in consumer spending.
Part 2 will be about whether economic growth is beneficial to us all. My feelings are that it is not such a good thing after all. We may need to change the way we view our economic lives.
Isn't it about time we asked...?
Isn’t it about time we asked:
1. Why religions which teach acceptance, tolerance and love, achieve little more than racial and social divisiveness and hatred?
2. Why there is still poverty, famine and starvation in a world that is capable of producing all that it needs for everyone?
3. Why over a million people have been killed in a war in Iraq that was allegedly about that country producing Weapons of Mass Destruction when there were none?
4. Why war is waged against Iraq in the cause of the war against terror when the Bin Ladens were an enemy of Saddam Hussein, but one-time friends of the Bush family?
5. Why in the war against Iraq, the allied forces went in and protected the Ministry of Oil and its oil wells and left that country’s cultural and historical heritage to looters?
6. Why we support infinite economic expansion that is impossible to sustain and makes us into economic slaves fraught with anxiety in its service?
7. Why we support authoritarian social and political structures that have failed us time and time again, rather than choosing social, personal and psychological freedom, and exercising responsibility for the world we live in?
8. Why ownership, being successful and making money is preferable to loving, personal relationships, being creative and building real quality of life?
9. Why Britons and Americans on average now spend around a working day or month or more, making friends on MySpace and Facebook rather than making friends in real life? (How many of your friends on social networks would give up a day to help you with a real problem in your life?)
10. Why we support commodity capitalism that turns everyone into “things” in support of its values of selfishness and greed and undermines the spirit of trust and cooperative human development?
11. What lasting benefit America has achieved for the world in any war it has waged since 1945? (Which wars have been won and for what?)
12. What the hell we are doing?
So what are we doing and thinking? It feels like time for change. Now who is going to be the first to tell me that I’m naïve and idealistic?
Dog wars!
28/07/08 12:22 Filed in: Dogs
Today, I am a prisoner in my own home. It’s hot outside, yet I have to keep all the doors closed. I’m sweltering. This is where I live and work. What I really love about here is that house and home merge with the countryside, one can eat on the terrace or in the garden and wander around the grounds and the pond. In the morning I can fling open the French windows, look up to the skies and see lofty towering pines, their tops bending in the wind...
That's Nallah, our friendly black labrador.
No longer!
We have a small house down the garden that we have started to rent out during the holiday season. We are not very experienced at this yet. A couple of weeks ago, Liz took a booking from a French family who wished to bring their dog on holiday with them. We like dogs and children here. Liz asked the breed. Our guests told her the breed and said it was a playful, genial, gentle puppy. They conjured up an image of friendly canine soppiness.
This nine-month old “puppy” is an aggressive monster the size of a small horse! I always thought our own daft dog, Nallah, was big enough. This creature is twice Nallah’s size.
It’s a beauceron called Kasper. Beauceron’s are favoured by the military because of their temperament. I bet they are.
We have dog wars!
The beauceron is an excellent guard dog apparently. True! I can vouch for that!
At first I felt it might be playful and friendly, not anymore.
Our rental cottage is very self-contained and private. It sits in its own fenced garden of about ¾ of an acre or so. Kasper has decided that he needs to extend his territory further…right the way down the garden to our house. He fights off anyone who so much as steps outside the back door, me included. He fights Nallah so I have had to lock her in. Beaucerons are meant to be loyal and obedient dogs. They are, but only to their owners.
I’m hoping I may get the odd reprieve. Surely these people must go out sometime. But where? I know of few restaurants that would tolerate an aggressive guard hound as big as a Shetland pony. Perhaps they’ll go to the beach, go sailing, walking, fishing…anywhere…but not so far today and it’s after noon.
I remain the prisoner of Pornic. I’m getting out the cooling fans now.
Nallah is restless. She wants to go outside and play. It's what she does all day, beyond sleeping and eating. She doesn't understand.
We are changing our rental policy about dogs. It’s sad, but so is being locked up in a greenhouse for two weeks.
A beauceron
The end of a story!
Today I destroyed 3,500 words.
Last Monday at 4:55 in the afternoon was a landmark moment for me. I completed my first novel. Provisionally, it’s called, Rosie. I may stay with that title. I like the simplicity of the woman’s name.
The story is long, probably too long for a first novel. Originally, it ran out at almost 111,000 words and some 14,000 lines. In paperback terms that’s a doorstep. It’s around 500 or so pages.
The excitement I felt in completing this story was indescribable. It was a euphoric moment, but as ever I held myself close to the ground and did not get carried away on some wave of personal inflation. I may have drunk one or three too many glasses of red wine on Monday night. I’ll confess that I probably did.
It’s been a long process. I started writing in May last year. My writing stalled in about mid-August. In terms of word count then, I was about half way through. There were links between my personal life and the story. My story had foreseen what might happen in a way, but it was overtaken by real life events. I stopped writing.
I stopped writing for more reasons than that too. I started to feel that my story and its characters were shallow and superficial. I was writing about emotions but I knew I was capable of expressing far deeper feelings than I had done in the story so far. I was recovering from a broken marriage and I was recovering fast. I did not know how to change up a gear and take the story on.
I may have suffered a bout of “analysis paralysis”. I’d go so far as to say, analysing something into a state of total inertia is, or at least was, a very irritating quality of mine. I’m learning how to trust my feelings and intuition better now in a way that avoids that particular trap of impotent intellectualisation, of thinking myself into a hole!
I need to get better at answering the questions, “What genre is it?” and “What’s it about?”
The genre question is tricky.
The story starts as an erotic romance with an underlying psychological narrative that exposes many of the failings and issues in modern emotional relationships within the the story itself. It’s not learned or pedantic, but it deals with big emotional issues that are commonplace and face a great number of people.
What do I mean? I’ll give you an example in a moment after I’ve explained a little of the plot.
Back to the genre... Perhaps, the story experiments with different genres. It is part erotic romance, part psychological reality, part comedy, part love story and intellectual thriller. I’ll have to get cleverer in describing it to publishers.
I have some anxieties about it.
My main anxiety is that the early chapters may contain too much explicit sex.
Sex is central to the plot as it is to most of our lives. But I’m worried about the reception it may be given by publishers, particularly those involved in the North American market where the predominant social direction seems to be one of ever-increasing puritanism. They may find my writing inordinately prurient. Prurience is not my aim, however. I believe that sex has gone off the rails in our culture. It is being commoditised and exploited ruthlessly, and dare I say it, immorally too. So my main themes in the book are often about people using sex as an escape from reality and pain, sex as a love substitute, sex as control, sex in an emotional void, and ultimately I deal with sex becoming a self-destructive force.
Last night, I signed into a book reader’s group to which I belong, and found that someone had posed the question, “Do you believe there is too much sex in novels these days?” The answers were not that inspiring. But I did find myself writing the “case for the defence”!
I wrote this and needless to say, it’s killed the discussion thread stone dead:
“I really love sex!
It’s healthy, it’s vital, it’s passionate, and it’s simply wonderful. In the context of love, it’s like heaven on earth!
Now did that catch your attention?
I’m not sure how many authors, I have read, capture the magic, the pleasures and passions of sex that well, however.
Sex is beautiful, so why should writing about it be pornographic?
The purpose of pornography is simple. It’s to achieve feelings of sexual arousal and lust in the viewer or reader that are not satisfied. Over 12% of internet content is pornography. It’s a multi-billion dollar industry. Why? Because sex is thought to be bad, risqué, dirty, naughty, un-Christian, unwholesome, not something one’s parents might have enjoyed or approved of, although clearly they must have done it once!
By repressing sex, we make it into some dreadful taboo. But it’s what we all need and want, at least those of us who function as normal human beings do. So through repression we turn sex into something that needs to be satisfied by pornography, some nasty masturbatory hinterland full of exploitation.
I rather dislike this question, I suppose. Who would post a question that said, “Do you feel that there is too much eating in novels?” Sex is as fundamental a human need as food and eating. If we had a healthier attitude towards sex then this discussion might not be taking place.
Sex is such a primal urge; it can change our behaviour and who we are. I’m not talking about men exclusively either.
On the whole, I feel very little about sex in literature. I’m not sure if there is too much or too little. There’s a lot of denial about it, for sure. I would welcome a writer who captured its joys well, but I have yet to find one. I would love to read accounts of sex in the context of human struggle, love, fulfilment and human actualisation.
So where are they?”
QUOTE ENDS
I don’t think that response is going to win me too many friends!
What I tried to do in my writing is to convey the joys and passions of loving sex, contrasted with the manifest perversion of sex, something that leads us astray from the realisation of love, personal fulfilment and actualisation.
Here’s what Rosie and John had to say about it in my story. John is speaking in the first person:
“Isn’t it amazing?” she said. “How healthy good sex makes us feel.
“I feel like I’m glowing with wellbeing this morning. I feel happy, healthy and complete. I haven’t had sex for years and last night I had the best sex of my entire life. It made me feel so good…like a whole person again.”
She paused for thought.
“You know, I’m sorry to sound like the shrink-wrap I am, but Freud had it absolutely right. Living in some void of sexual repression does us no good at all. It makes us sick. If it doesn’t drive us to do crazy things then it just makes us sick at heart. So what goes wrong?” she said.
“Rosie, I’m with you on that one. It’s what I believe too but all sorts of things go wrong,” I said.
“Either we live in aloneness like you, or else we get caught up in emotional double binds and twists and turns with our loved ones that just do us harm. We lose the plot, I suppose,” I added.
“Have you lost the plot?” she asked.
“Yes, me too,” I replied. “I’ve got caught up in that world where money and material stuff controls what I do both in and out of my marriage.
“And by the way, you weren’t the only one to have the best sex of their lives last night. I did too.”
I caught Rosie’s eye and returned her smile.
“Sex is a basic human need, as basic as food, drink and sleep,” I said. “Denying it makes people crazy. It not only causes social disease, but makes for a lot of perverted and crazy people out there too. Freud was right on the mark in my view.
“So you see we’re both a pair of shrink-wraps leading lives that are opposed to what we believe, and therein lies the rub!” I added.”
QUOTE ENDS
Same points, different medium!
Now where was I? I’m introducing characters without saying who they are or anything of the plot!
The Plot
Here’s a quick thumbnail sketch (that's deliberately not intended as a plot summary):
Last Monday at 4:55 in the afternoon was a landmark moment for me. I completed my first novel. Provisionally, it’s called, Rosie. I may stay with that title. I like the simplicity of the woman’s name.
The story is long, probably too long for a first novel. Originally, it ran out at almost 111,000 words and some 14,000 lines. In paperback terms that’s a doorstep. It’s around 500 or so pages.
The excitement I felt in completing this story was indescribable. It was a euphoric moment, but as ever I held myself close to the ground and did not get carried away on some wave of personal inflation. I may have drunk one or three too many glasses of red wine on Monday night. I’ll confess that I probably did.
It’s been a long process. I started writing in May last year. My writing stalled in about mid-August. In terms of word count then, I was about half way through. There were links between my personal life and the story. My story had foreseen what might happen in a way, but it was overtaken by real life events. I stopped writing.
I stopped writing for more reasons than that too. I started to feel that my story and its characters were shallow and superficial. I was writing about emotions but I knew I was capable of expressing far deeper feelings than I had done in the story so far. I was recovering from a broken marriage and I was recovering fast. I did not know how to change up a gear and take the story on.
I may have suffered a bout of “analysis paralysis”. I’d go so far as to say, analysing something into a state of total inertia is, or at least was, a very irritating quality of mine. I’m learning how to trust my feelings and intuition better now in a way that avoids that particular trap of impotent intellectualisation, of thinking myself into a hole!
I need to get better at answering the questions, “What genre is it?” and “What’s it about?”
The genre question is tricky.
The story starts as an erotic romance with an underlying psychological narrative that exposes many of the failings and issues in modern emotional relationships within the the story itself. It’s not learned or pedantic, but it deals with big emotional issues that are commonplace and face a great number of people.
What do I mean? I’ll give you an example in a moment after I’ve explained a little of the plot.
Back to the genre... Perhaps, the story experiments with different genres. It is part erotic romance, part psychological reality, part comedy, part love story and intellectual thriller. I’ll have to get cleverer in describing it to publishers.
I have some anxieties about it.
My main anxiety is that the early chapters may contain too much explicit sex.
Sex is central to the plot as it is to most of our lives. But I’m worried about the reception it may be given by publishers, particularly those involved in the North American market where the predominant social direction seems to be one of ever-increasing puritanism. They may find my writing inordinately prurient. Prurience is not my aim, however. I believe that sex has gone off the rails in our culture. It is being commoditised and exploited ruthlessly, and dare I say it, immorally too. So my main themes in the book are often about people using sex as an escape from reality and pain, sex as a love substitute, sex as control, sex in an emotional void, and ultimately I deal with sex becoming a self-destructive force.
Last night, I signed into a book reader’s group to which I belong, and found that someone had posed the question, “Do you believe there is too much sex in novels these days?” The answers were not that inspiring. But I did find myself writing the “case for the defence”!
I wrote this and needless to say, it’s killed the discussion thread stone dead:
“I really love sex!
It’s healthy, it’s vital, it’s passionate, and it’s simply wonderful. In the context of love, it’s like heaven on earth!
Now did that catch your attention?
I’m not sure how many authors, I have read, capture the magic, the pleasures and passions of sex that well, however.
Sex is beautiful, so why should writing about it be pornographic?
The purpose of pornography is simple. It’s to achieve feelings of sexual arousal and lust in the viewer or reader that are not satisfied. Over 12% of internet content is pornography. It’s a multi-billion dollar industry. Why? Because sex is thought to be bad, risqué, dirty, naughty, un-Christian, unwholesome, not something one’s parents might have enjoyed or approved of, although clearly they must have done it once!
By repressing sex, we make it into some dreadful taboo. But it’s what we all need and want, at least those of us who function as normal human beings do. So through repression we turn sex into something that needs to be satisfied by pornography, some nasty masturbatory hinterland full of exploitation.
I rather dislike this question, I suppose. Who would post a question that said, “Do you feel that there is too much eating in novels?” Sex is as fundamental a human need as food and eating. If we had a healthier attitude towards sex then this discussion might not be taking place.
Sex is such a primal urge; it can change our behaviour and who we are. I’m not talking about men exclusively either.
On the whole, I feel very little about sex in literature. I’m not sure if there is too much or too little. There’s a lot of denial about it, for sure. I would welcome a writer who captured its joys well, but I have yet to find one. I would love to read accounts of sex in the context of human struggle, love, fulfilment and human actualisation.
So where are they?”
QUOTE ENDS
I don’t think that response is going to win me too many friends!
What I tried to do in my writing is to convey the joys and passions of loving sex, contrasted with the manifest perversion of sex, something that leads us astray from the realisation of love, personal fulfilment and actualisation.
Here’s what Rosie and John had to say about it in my story. John is speaking in the first person:
“Isn’t it amazing?” she said. “How healthy good sex makes us feel.
“I feel like I’m glowing with wellbeing this morning. I feel happy, healthy and complete. I haven’t had sex for years and last night I had the best sex of my entire life. It made me feel so good…like a whole person again.”
She paused for thought.
“You know, I’m sorry to sound like the shrink-wrap I am, but Freud had it absolutely right. Living in some void of sexual repression does us no good at all. It makes us sick. If it doesn’t drive us to do crazy things then it just makes us sick at heart. So what goes wrong?” she said.
“Rosie, I’m with you on that one. It’s what I believe too but all sorts of things go wrong,” I said.
“Either we live in aloneness like you, or else we get caught up in emotional double binds and twists and turns with our loved ones that just do us harm. We lose the plot, I suppose,” I added.
“Have you lost the plot?” she asked.
“Yes, me too,” I replied. “I’ve got caught up in that world where money and material stuff controls what I do both in and out of my marriage.
“And by the way, you weren’t the only one to have the best sex of their lives last night. I did too.”
I caught Rosie’s eye and returned her smile.
“Sex is a basic human need, as basic as food, drink and sleep,” I said. “Denying it makes people crazy. It not only causes social disease, but makes for a lot of perverted and crazy people out there too. Freud was right on the mark in my view.
“So you see we’re both a pair of shrink-wraps leading lives that are opposed to what we believe, and therein lies the rub!” I added.”
QUOTE ENDS
Same points, different medium!
Now where was I? I’m introducing characters without saying who they are or anything of the plot!
The Plot
Here’s a quick thumbnail sketch (that's deliberately not intended as a plot summary):
John meets Rosie.
The tensions in the beginning of the story are those that arise between John and his estranged, emotionally disturbed, American wife in the context of a developing love relationship with Rosie, a practising psychotherapist. John is qualified as a therapist, but he does not practice.
The story maps the complexity of emotions and their development in John's love for Rosie. Initially they both use sex as an escape from past emotional pain.
John has to fight off the sexual attentions of Rosie's sister, a successful but unhappy dentist, who has used sex to ensnare all of Rosie's past lovers including her ex-husband. There's a lot of humour in that part of the tale!
Just as we feel John and Rosie may live happily ever after, John almost dies.
Meanwhile, Jane becomes mentally ill and develops multiple personality disorder with four separate identities, all of which have names and separate existences.
All of Jane’s delusional personas have their own lives too. One even has her own car! Jane has a predatory sexual persona called Jo; a saintly do-gooder persona, who sometimes impersonates nuns, called MaryJo Bernardette; and a little girl persona called Dorothy (who wants a dog called Toto!). While enacting the Jo persona, Jane is brutally attacked and gang-raped. She is mortally injured. John is summoned to her bedside in California. Jane is comatose.
Rosie is wracked by personal insecurity, when John leaves to be with Jane.
She gets drunk and the next morning crashes her car. Will she meet the grim reaper?
John is away in California at his wife's bedside. Jane is dying and John is torn apart with grief and guilt.
Rosie is lying unconscious in an overturned car in the Cambridgeshire countryside.
Jane dies.
You didn’t think I’d give the whole plot away, did you?
That’s about two thirds of the way through the story and gives away very little. John’s struggle with life and death is a cliff-hanger. There are twists and turns at every stage, and a lot of human banana skins to slip up on too.
I shared this next passage with a wonderful friend of mine, a counsellor and holistic therapist. She was very enthusiastic about its psychological message. It's integral to the plot. It's about finding one's bearings in love relationships.
It’s John and Rosie playing “truth or dare” or “true confessions”. It’s John speaking about his past:
"Rosie giggled and looked straight at me. Not once during my monologue had she diverted her eyes from me.
“So here comes the brief summary and analysis as far as I understand it,” I said. “I’m not sure how far that is really.
“I’m a qualified therapist. I’ve done relationship and marriage counselling. I’ve even been published on the subject. But when it comes to close intimate relationships for me personally, I’m totally useless, complete crap you could say.
“I’ve been through hundreds of hours of training therapy. Every part of my past has been laid out before me and dissected in detail, but still I get into such terrible messes.
“There’s one important factor, like a missing piece of the jigsaw, that I know is missing too. It’s the therapist’s dream really. I had a totally loveless childhood. It was worse than that too. Some of it verged on brutal cruelty and abuse. It was probably the biggest reason I took up therapy in the first place. During training I had to get all this out and look at it in the minutest detail. I got angry, raged and I wept going through all that stuff. I was so scared that I almost gave up the course, but I didn’t want it to beat me. I felt so much turmoil inside, I was afraid I would have a breakdown, but there were good and supportive people at the Institute and I made it through intact.
“I supposed all that we looked at was the stuff that was there, rather than the parts that were missing. Maybe that’s it. Maybe it’s more complicated, I don’t know.
“The emotional bonds of childhood are what form and shape our lives. If there’s no point of reference for a person’s emotional world, no emotional frame of reference, they have difficulty in understanding their own feelings, particularly their deep feelings. Perhaps they can pick the rest up on the way, but without that frame of reference, there’s no guide to love, loving and being loved. And it doesn’t stop there; they probably don’t know where their emotional limits or boundaries sit either. It’s like trying to follow a route map without a compass; you keep getting lost.
“So perhaps that’s me, no emotional frame of reference and intimate relationships by trial and error, only in my case, there are a lot of errors.
“I don’t even know if that’s right. How could I? It’s like how would you know what’s missing if it’s never been there, but I think I’m on the right track. I'll have to try and follow my heart and be true to myself. Part of that journey may be finding that truth and even knowing or hearing what my heart is saying." "
QUOTE ENDS
So how is your compass? Mine works most of the time these days. Is the monologue overlong? I do need to work on tightening up some of the dialogue in the first part of the story from which that quote was drawn. The second half of this tale is much more taut and racy. Editing is going to be a challenge!
The destroyed words?
I’m editing and today I’ve cut out almost as many words as I would be capable of writing in a day. I need to get the story down to below 100,000 words. There’s lot of plod, fat and flab to cut out yet and I’m struggling hard with the idea of whether there is too much sex. Probably, I feel not, but I’m sure others would differ.
A Blogger's Progress!
07/07/08 15:15 Filed in: Life | Blogs and Blogging
It’s been two days less than three months since I set up this website and about two months since I established my three blogs here. If only I had more time!
What a three months they have been! On April 14th, I took the big step of moving to France to live with my French partner, Liz. No regrets there.
There are three sets of web statistics running on this site, two from my ISP and Google analytics. None of them are wholly accurate, but they are indicative of trends.
My site traffic has astonished me! The numbers of people who come here to read what I have written amazes me daily. As of today, I appear to have clocked up about 2,700 visits from a standing start!
So where do the visitors come from?
In terms of referrals, currently, the top four sources are:
1. BlogCatalog – 20%
2. Stumbleupon – 20%
3. MySpace – 11%
4. Google Search – 10%
According to Google, I have over two hundred external links from other sites. The top sources of referral from other websites, and this may surprise the website owners themselves, in order of numbers of recent referrals are:
1. Knowing Nantes
2. Writing to survive
3. Pentad – Simplifying Life and Love
4. This time, this space
And then there’s geography, again there were some surprises for me here as well!
1. United States
2. France
3. United Kingdom
4. Canada
I’m surprised that I have so many French readers, then, perhaps I shouldn’t be, as next in my reader’s geography list came Algeria. I can’t explain that either!
Other web news:
Last week, I wrote a particularly challenging and difficult piece as a guest contributor on another website. It was entitled, “America Awake! Killing is not a Christian virtue.” I surprised myself with that one, as it’s a little off subject for me. I was moved by another post of the website owner, a woman who goes by the alias of “Timethief”. I enjoy Timethief’s writing. It is as compassionate as it is direct, powerful and incisive. You can find my post here.
One particular phenomenon that is still a mystery to me, especially since it happened only once, is that on 2nd July last week, my viewing stats went off the charts (for me!) with 135 viewers in a single day. Probably, my blogging acquaintances and friends might shrug their shoulders and say, “It’s nothing,” but it was a massive increase in traffic in a day for this site. Originally I had thought that it might be interest from the friends of Cardiff Male Choir about whom I had written here, but no, it was this post on my “Love’s Passage” blog that got all the attention! It’s one of my favourite posts of all time, but still I don’t understand the sudden high interest.
Otherwise…
Our online grocer’s business, Things British, goes on making slow progress. I need to think hard about how to shift that one up a gear or two, or else hold a “yard sale” for groceries!
Last week, I also launched yet another new website, A small place in France, to market the little holiday cottage in the grounds of our house here.
Finally, there was the other big 'not-quite-a-secret' about my work projects currently. I decided to complete the writing of two books I had started in the past year. One of the books is almost there! Currently it runs out at about 320 pages and there has been considerable interest in it. It’s a love story of sorts, but to describe it as such would not do it justice as it swings through psychological intrigue to pathos, erotic romance and humour. It was a story I had written off for a while, but I decided, with Liz’s encouragement, to try and breathe more life into it. I may have succeeded. Then there is another part-written “fairy tale for adults” which is more of an allegory. It comes complete with kings, queens, wizards, dragons and space rockets! I shall enjoy writing that one more!
As Liz said to me yesterday, “You and I do have a wonderful life.” Indeed we do.
À Bientôt...Till the next time!
What a three months they have been! On April 14th, I took the big step of moving to France to live with my French partner, Liz. No regrets there.
There are three sets of web statistics running on this site, two from my ISP and Google analytics. None of them are wholly accurate, but they are indicative of trends.
My site traffic has astonished me! The numbers of people who come here to read what I have written amazes me daily. As of today, I appear to have clocked up about 2,700 visits from a standing start!
So where do the visitors come from?
In terms of referrals, currently, the top four sources are:
1. BlogCatalog – 20%
2. Stumbleupon – 20%
3. MySpace – 11%
4. Google Search – 10%
According to Google, I have over two hundred external links from other sites. The top sources of referral from other websites, and this may surprise the website owners themselves, in order of numbers of recent referrals are:
1. Knowing Nantes
2. Writing to survive
3. Pentad – Simplifying Life and Love
4. This time, this space
And then there’s geography, again there were some surprises for me here as well!
1. United States
2. France
3. United Kingdom
4. Canada
I’m surprised that I have so many French readers, then, perhaps I shouldn’t be, as next in my reader’s geography list came Algeria. I can’t explain that either!
Other web news:
Last week, I wrote a particularly challenging and difficult piece as a guest contributor on another website. It was entitled, “America Awake! Killing is not a Christian virtue.” I surprised myself with that one, as it’s a little off subject for me. I was moved by another post of the website owner, a woman who goes by the alias of “Timethief”. I enjoy Timethief’s writing. It is as compassionate as it is direct, powerful and incisive. You can find my post here.
One particular phenomenon that is still a mystery to me, especially since it happened only once, is that on 2nd July last week, my viewing stats went off the charts (for me!) with 135 viewers in a single day. Probably, my blogging acquaintances and friends might shrug their shoulders and say, “It’s nothing,” but it was a massive increase in traffic in a day for this site. Originally I had thought that it might be interest from the friends of Cardiff Male Choir about whom I had written here, but no, it was this post on my “Love’s Passage” blog that got all the attention! It’s one of my favourite posts of all time, but still I don’t understand the sudden high interest.
Otherwise…
Our online grocer’s business, Things British, goes on making slow progress. I need to think hard about how to shift that one up a gear or two, or else hold a “yard sale” for groceries!
Last week, I also launched yet another new website, A small place in France, to market the little holiday cottage in the grounds of our house here.
Finally, there was the other big 'not-quite-a-secret' about my work projects currently. I decided to complete the writing of two books I had started in the past year. One of the books is almost there! Currently it runs out at about 320 pages and there has been considerable interest in it. It’s a love story of sorts, but to describe it as such would not do it justice as it swings through psychological intrigue to pathos, erotic romance and humour. It was a story I had written off for a while, but I decided, with Liz’s encouragement, to try and breathe more life into it. I may have succeeded. Then there is another part-written “fairy tale for adults” which is more of an allegory. It comes complete with kings, queens, wizards, dragons and space rockets! I shall enjoy writing that one more!
As Liz said to me yesterday, “You and I do have a wonderful life.” Indeed we do.
À Bientôt...Till the next time!
L'Envol'h and Cardiff Male Choir perform in Nantes! - Part 2 - a musical extravaganza
01/07/08 10:39 Filed in: Music
Back to my weekend musical extravaganza! It was not all music. The Welsh and the French understand more than a thing or too about having a good time! Almost every spare moment was spent in celebration of one sort or another! I missed out on the long French lunches but still I felt that I had had far too much to eat and drink!
On Friday night, L’Envol’h gave a party in honour of our Welsh visitors and what a party it was! The choir laid on a sumptuous feast, a delicious buffet with, of course, more wine than one could possibly drink. The Welsh were, after all, a very thirsty bunch! I was struck by the generosity and kindness of both nations. All weekend, I never heard an unkind word or complaint from anyone. They had an openness, warmth and generosity of spirit that I had rarely experienced in either England or the United States. It was superb. If only all life could be like that. It raised my spirits beyond measure.
I resisted talking about this last time for fear that I might sound sloppy or cheesy, but my partner, Liz was an absolute gem! In public, I was able to stand back and appreciate this wonderful woman away from the trials of our daily lives. To quote a message I received from one of our English friends in Nantes, she was “fab”! Our friend went on to talk about how lovely Liz was in public, on stage and in the flesh. I could not agree more. She had worked tirelessly to make the weekend a success and what a success it was. Similarly, she puts all her heart and soul into running a Nantes school in a difficult and deprived area. She has transformed that school over the past few years almost beyond recognition. Often she is preoccupied with the many difficulties of the school day-to-day. Some days that place is like an outpost of the local gendarmerie! Liz, I am full of love, admiration and respect for you. We must take time out to be ourselves more often!
Next in our weekend was the Nantes Choralia. It was held in the grounds in the grounds of Le Chateau des Ducs, the castle of the Dukes of Brittany, the very last Loire Chateau before the river meets the Atlantic Ocean. Here’s a bit of tourist blurb about the Chateau:
“From the city, the Castle appears an austere fortress, with a sentry walk 500 metres long punctuated by seven towers set into its curtain walls. This urban stronghold was built in the late Middle Ages by Duke Francis II and his daughter, Anne of Brittany, to defend the independence of the Duchy of Brittany, then under threat from the Kingdom of France. The castle's inner courtyard reveals a 15th century ducal palace built of tufa stone in the Renaissance style, together with other buildings from the 16th to the 18th centuries. The ensemble is remarkable for its striking whiteness, its elegance and its fine stone carvings, in sharp contrast with the rough exterior walls. The Castle, a listed Historical Monument, has recently been completely restored.”
The castle was a beautiful setting. Here’s a picture from the courtyard:
Nantes Choralia featured ten choirs and a band. On my arrival, I met some of the band who were quaffing wine from large flagons. I hoped they would be able to play later. They were red-faced, but still articulate. They reminded me of an English film I love called “Brassed Off”. To those who know it, the performers of the band, the worse for drink later, were, needless to say the brass wind instrument players. There must be something about playing a trumpet!
Both the Cardiff Male Choir and L’Envol’h were great that evening. The big-space acoustics seemed to suit them better. The men from Wales could sing as loud as they liked. I listened to them standing up on the castle’s ramparts: Note-perfect, precise pitch and great harmony. L’Envol’h’s performance was beautiful too. They sang as one choir, a single multi-faceted voice.
It was a long evening. There was a grand finale with most of the choirs and the band too. The brass section of the band may have been playing best “appellation contrôlée”, but I was not sure if they were in tune. Neither was I sure that it was as grand as it could have been. So much potential and such a weak repertoire! There was some French popular song that the concert directors felt worthy of an encore. It was about as exciting as Sacha Distel eating cabbage! Perhaps, it was not as good as that.
The concert finished a little before midnight. Time for bed? Not for us, it was off to party at the hotel where the Cardiff Male Choir was staying! The men had come off stage at around 9:30. Some of the men had taken advantage of their early finish to sample the local ale. When we arrived, the loud sounds of their revelling told us that some serious drinking was in progress. On the Friday night, there had been presentations by the French, gifts of boxed magnums of wine, to the senior members of the Welsh choir. To command the attention of the room, Liz and Christian, the treasurer of L’Envol’h had stood up on tables. At the time, they were sober! They made speeches of gratitude and recognition. John Reardon, the chairman of the Cardiff choir, decided to continue the tradition on Saturday night. He wobbled precariously along the hotel’s garden table to roars of applause.
He was going to give a speech whether we wanted one or not! I cannot remember quite what he said and I doubt whether he could either! We roared with uncontrollable laughter as John struggled amiably to express his gratitude and enjoyment. He summoned Liz to join him clutching his beer glass to his heart. It was like a love scene in a comedy sketch. John stooped down on bended knee, swaying as he spoke, clutching Liz’s hand.
At one point, I feared he might fall but he was made of stronger stuff! Five or more pints of stronger stuff, I suspect! It was another great evening, or should I say morning. By the time we got to bed, it was three o' clock. I suspect that our good friends from Wales may have gone on all night, had it not been for the fact that the hotel ran out of beer! The Welsh had drunk the place dry!
I’m not sure how we did it, but we rose the following morning with the larks. First thing on the itinerary was a "surprise" visit to a local vineyard. The French wine, Muscadet, is produced in the Nantes region. We arrived at the vineyard at 8:30 a.m. Surely no one could drink wine at that time of the morning, could they? Not after staying out drinking until three earlier that same morning. We did. The Cardiff coach arrived some fifteen minutes later. A brave few clambered from the bus. Wine tasting is a very serious ritual. The vineyard owner explained how we should oxygenate the wine before drinking it. Then, he told us, we should take time to “appreciate its breasts and its legs!” Inevitably I could not resist cracking jokes about the size of its breasts! They were not that large!
Our weekend of song and revelling was coming to an end. I led the convoy back to the hotel to change and pick up the luggage and those who had sensibly slept in and ate breakfast. Liz was my navigator. She refused to trust my satellite navigation device. She often liked to dispute the routes it took us on, although it had never failed to get me to where I wanted to go. It is very reliable and less easily distracted than Liz who frequently changes her mind about directions halfway through a turn manoeuvre.
Our weekend was drawing to a close, but, in time honoured French tradition, we needed to have a long lunch, lunch at 11:15 am! We ate at the restaurant at SNUC, the Nantes rugby club. For my English and those Welsh readers, who did not make it on this trip, I should explain that we do not have restaurants like this one at our rugby clubs. The cuisine at SNUC is among the best in Nantes, the ambience and service at the restaurant are excellent too. Liz and I love eating there. It was lunch for almost seventy people! The Maître d'hotel insisted that the Welsh sing again before they left. They were up for it! Everybody rose to join in the chorus of the famous Welsh Anthem, "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau", all except me. I have never mastered Welsh. I am unsure how to pronounce so many consonants in sequence. After that, they sang “La Marseillaise.” I knew from talking to the choir that they had learned the words before the trip. I am glad they got the opportunity to sing them.
Our weekend was over. After a group photograph, it was homeward bound for the Welsh. I was sorry and saddened to see them leave. It had been a most wonderful weekend. I am sure that the members of L’Envol’h would wish to join me in saying thank you. So where will our “return match” be?
I'll end with the words of one of the Welsh choristers, Gary, who expressed what we all felt:
"For the few who couldn't make it, it would have just been another weekend, but we will always have these extraordinary memories."
Perfect!
History of the Cardiff Male Choir
This year will be the one hundred and tenth anniversary of Cardiff Male Choir that was formed in 1898. It has existed through two world wars and the reigns of six British monarchs. You can read more about the history of the Cardiff Male Choir here
On Friday night, L’Envol’h gave a party in honour of our Welsh visitors and what a party it was! The choir laid on a sumptuous feast, a delicious buffet with, of course, more wine than one could possibly drink. The Welsh were, after all, a very thirsty bunch! I was struck by the generosity and kindness of both nations. All weekend, I never heard an unkind word or complaint from anyone. They had an openness, warmth and generosity of spirit that I had rarely experienced in either England or the United States. It was superb. If only all life could be like that. It raised my spirits beyond measure.
I resisted talking about this last time for fear that I might sound sloppy or cheesy, but my partner, Liz was an absolute gem! In public, I was able to stand back and appreciate this wonderful woman away from the trials of our daily lives. To quote a message I received from one of our English friends in Nantes, she was “fab”! Our friend went on to talk about how lovely Liz was in public, on stage and in the flesh. I could not agree more. She had worked tirelessly to make the weekend a success and what a success it was. Similarly, she puts all her heart and soul into running a Nantes school in a difficult and deprived area. She has transformed that school over the past few years almost beyond recognition. Often she is preoccupied with the many difficulties of the school day-to-day. Some days that place is like an outpost of the local gendarmerie! Liz, I am full of love, admiration and respect for you. We must take time out to be ourselves more often!
Next in our weekend was the Nantes Choralia. It was held in the grounds in the grounds of Le Chateau des Ducs, the castle of the Dukes of Brittany, the very last Loire Chateau before the river meets the Atlantic Ocean. Here’s a bit of tourist blurb about the Chateau:
“From the city, the Castle appears an austere fortress, with a sentry walk 500 metres long punctuated by seven towers set into its curtain walls. This urban stronghold was built in the late Middle Ages by Duke Francis II and his daughter, Anne of Brittany, to defend the independence of the Duchy of Brittany, then under threat from the Kingdom of France. The castle's inner courtyard reveals a 15th century ducal palace built of tufa stone in the Renaissance style, together with other buildings from the 16th to the 18th centuries. The ensemble is remarkable for its striking whiteness, its elegance and its fine stone carvings, in sharp contrast with the rough exterior walls. The Castle, a listed Historical Monument, has recently been completely restored.”
The castle was a beautiful setting. Here’s a picture from the courtyard:
Nantes Choralia featured ten choirs and a band. On my arrival, I met some of the band who were quaffing wine from large flagons. I hoped they would be able to play later. They were red-faced, but still articulate. They reminded me of an English film I love called “Brassed Off”. To those who know it, the performers of the band, the worse for drink later, were, needless to say the brass wind instrument players. There must be something about playing a trumpet!
Both the Cardiff Male Choir and L’Envol’h were great that evening. The big-space acoustics seemed to suit them better. The men from Wales could sing as loud as they liked. I listened to them standing up on the castle’s ramparts: Note-perfect, precise pitch and great harmony. L’Envol’h’s performance was beautiful too. They sang as one choir, a single multi-faceted voice.
It was a long evening. There was a grand finale with most of the choirs and the band too. The brass section of the band may have been playing best “appellation contrôlée”, but I was not sure if they were in tune. Neither was I sure that it was as grand as it could have been. So much potential and such a weak repertoire! There was some French popular song that the concert directors felt worthy of an encore. It was about as exciting as Sacha Distel eating cabbage! Perhaps, it was not as good as that.
The concert finished a little before midnight. Time for bed? Not for us, it was off to party at the hotel where the Cardiff Male Choir was staying! The men had come off stage at around 9:30. Some of the men had taken advantage of their early finish to sample the local ale. When we arrived, the loud sounds of their revelling told us that some serious drinking was in progress. On the Friday night, there had been presentations by the French, gifts of boxed magnums of wine, to the senior members of the Welsh choir. To command the attention of the room, Liz and Christian, the treasurer of L’Envol’h had stood up on tables. At the time, they were sober! They made speeches of gratitude and recognition. John Reardon, the chairman of the Cardiff choir, decided to continue the tradition on Saturday night. He wobbled precariously along the hotel’s garden table to roars of applause.
He was going to give a speech whether we wanted one or not! I cannot remember quite what he said and I doubt whether he could either! We roared with uncontrollable laughter as John struggled amiably to express his gratitude and enjoyment. He summoned Liz to join him clutching his beer glass to his heart. It was like a love scene in a comedy sketch. John stooped down on bended knee, swaying as he spoke, clutching Liz’s hand.
At one point, I feared he might fall but he was made of stronger stuff! Five or more pints of stronger stuff, I suspect! It was another great evening, or should I say morning. By the time we got to bed, it was three o' clock. I suspect that our good friends from Wales may have gone on all night, had it not been for the fact that the hotel ran out of beer! The Welsh had drunk the place dry!
I’m not sure how we did it, but we rose the following morning with the larks. First thing on the itinerary was a "surprise" visit to a local vineyard. The French wine, Muscadet, is produced in the Nantes region. We arrived at the vineyard at 8:30 a.m. Surely no one could drink wine at that time of the morning, could they? Not after staying out drinking until three earlier that same morning. We did. The Cardiff coach arrived some fifteen minutes later. A brave few clambered from the bus. Wine tasting is a very serious ritual. The vineyard owner explained how we should oxygenate the wine before drinking it. Then, he told us, we should take time to “appreciate its breasts and its legs!” Inevitably I could not resist cracking jokes about the size of its breasts! They were not that large!
Our weekend of song and revelling was coming to an end. I led the convoy back to the hotel to change and pick up the luggage and those who had sensibly slept in and ate breakfast. Liz was my navigator. She refused to trust my satellite navigation device. She often liked to dispute the routes it took us on, although it had never failed to get me to where I wanted to go. It is very reliable and less easily distracted than Liz who frequently changes her mind about directions halfway through a turn manoeuvre.
Our weekend was drawing to a close, but, in time honoured French tradition, we needed to have a long lunch, lunch at 11:15 am! We ate at the restaurant at SNUC, the Nantes rugby club. For my English and those Welsh readers, who did not make it on this trip, I should explain that we do not have restaurants like this one at our rugby clubs. The cuisine at SNUC is among the best in Nantes, the ambience and service at the restaurant are excellent too. Liz and I love eating there. It was lunch for almost seventy people! The Maître d'hotel insisted that the Welsh sing again before they left. They were up for it! Everybody rose to join in the chorus of the famous Welsh Anthem, "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau", all except me. I have never mastered Welsh. I am unsure how to pronounce so many consonants in sequence. After that, they sang “La Marseillaise.” I knew from talking to the choir that they had learned the words before the trip. I am glad they got the opportunity to sing them.
Our weekend was over. After a group photograph, it was homeward bound for the Welsh. I was sorry and saddened to see them leave. It had been a most wonderful weekend. I am sure that the members of L’Envol’h would wish to join me in saying thank you. So where will our “return match” be?
I'll end with the words of one of the Welsh choristers, Gary, who expressed what we all felt:
"For the few who couldn't make it, it would have just been another weekend, but we will always have these extraordinary memories."
Perfect!
History of the Cardiff Male Choir
This year will be the one hundred and tenth anniversary of Cardiff Male Choir that was formed in 1898. It has existed through two world wars and the reigns of six British monarchs. You can read more about the history of the Cardiff Male Choir here
L'Envol'h and Cardiff Male Choir perform in Nantes! - Part 1
30/06/08 16:08 Filed in: Music
What a weekend! It was the visit of the Cardiff Male Choir to Nantes, an event for which my partner, Liz, and her fellow choristers at L’Envol’h had worked tirelessly for weeks! It was worth every ounce of effort. It was a magnificent success!
The first event of Friday was a civic reception at Nantes Town Hall.
What struck me immediately was the great warmth and enormous friendliness of the Welsh, who took everything in their very relaxed stride. There was no strutting, posturing or preening from these guys, nor were they fazed by any of the proceedings. One quickly gained the impression that these acclaimed singers were consummate professionals. They had done this many times before. They were excellent ambassadors for their choir and their country. One could not fail to like them! Following the usual round of speeches and presentations, it was off to the rehearsal for the concert that night at L’Eglise St Martin de Chantenay, a church on the outskirts of the city.
I sat in on the rehearsals. The acoustics of the Church suited the delicate softer sound of L’Envol’h well. The acoustics had a brittle bell-like quality, their voices sounded as though they were ringing, almost as if they were bouncing off porcelain. A whisper in the church could be heard everywhere. Had I been a good catholic, I would have feared going to confession there, as I was sure that I might have been heard by anyone in the building! And my confessions may have made Saint Jude blush. (St Jude is the patron saint of hopeless causes!)
When the men from Cardiff started to sing, it felt as though the church might fall down around us, almost as if a volcano was about to erupt. L’Envol’h’s tones bounced in the building like glass, whereas the sound of these men made it shake! Guy, the Cardiff choir’s director, grasped the situation in an instant and got the choir to moderate its sound. Guy was impressive; an excellent, empathic and bright teacher, who wanted nothing but the best. He understood the choir’s need for confidence immediately, although the rehearsal was still a little ragged in parts. Guy moved between berating the choir and building their confidence quickly. He never for an instant allowed the choir to become despondent or let their confidence sag.
I have never been much of a fan for popular choral music. Now I’m almost a convert, although I’m afraid that parts of both choir’s repertoire’s did not work for me. I felt it might have been best for Cardiff to have left the “rhythm of life” vibrating in a hole elsewhere. Similarly, L’Envol’h’s rendition of “Somewhere over a Rainbow” may have been best sent back to the land of Oz!
By the time of the live performance, the choirs had come together. Cardiff Male Choir was electrifying. Their performance was so good, it gave me goose pimples and made my hairs stand on end. It was a knock out! I’m no music critic, so I’ll have to share my uninformed opinions in layman’s words. What I loved about this choir was the way its different voices; baritone, tenor, bass, all played their own part in every piece they sang, but all hung together too. There was no imbalance in sound. It was always a single choir with a single voice merging its sounds across different vocal ranges in a way that sounded homogeneous and harmonious. It was like an orchestra where the sounds of the tympani, the violin and the piccolo may be distinct, but where each makes its contribution to an overall single musical sound.
At times, L’Envol’h was not always together in the same way. Occasionally they lacked homogeneity and I wondered if the sopranos were giving their own solo performance. But I would not wish to be too critical of them either, as after all, I cannot sing. Although I might like to try one day, but not in French! L’Envol’h’s performance had enormous energy, presence and charm. It was wonderful, but in different ways from the Cardiff Choir. Overall I felt their choral style was better suited to a more sacred classical repertoire, but I loved their energy in “Sing and Swing”. As a cockney from my part of the world might have said, “They gave it large!” L’Envol’h had the most wonderful stage presence that combined passion and a true delicacy of harmony. One of the best moments of the weekend for me was watching L’Envol’h sing and having fun doing it.
I took pictures of the entire weekend that you can find here . This is a picture of L’Envol’h singing “Sing and Swing”:
How much fun is that!
What I admired about both choirs and especially L’Envol’h was the passion for their craft, their enormous desire to perform and entertain to the best of their ability. It was impressive beyond words.
Much more to say…maybe later…
The first event of Friday was a civic reception at Nantes Town Hall.
What struck me immediately was the great warmth and enormous friendliness of the Welsh, who took everything in their very relaxed stride. There was no strutting, posturing or preening from these guys, nor were they fazed by any of the proceedings. One quickly gained the impression that these acclaimed singers were consummate professionals. They had done this many times before. They were excellent ambassadors for their choir and their country. One could not fail to like them! Following the usual round of speeches and presentations, it was off to the rehearsal for the concert that night at L’Eglise St Martin de Chantenay, a church on the outskirts of the city.
I sat in on the rehearsals. The acoustics of the Church suited the delicate softer sound of L’Envol’h well. The acoustics had a brittle bell-like quality, their voices sounded as though they were ringing, almost as if they were bouncing off porcelain. A whisper in the church could be heard everywhere. Had I been a good catholic, I would have feared going to confession there, as I was sure that I might have been heard by anyone in the building! And my confessions may have made Saint Jude blush. (St Jude is the patron saint of hopeless causes!)
When the men from Cardiff started to sing, it felt as though the church might fall down around us, almost as if a volcano was about to erupt. L’Envol’h’s tones bounced in the building like glass, whereas the sound of these men made it shake! Guy, the Cardiff choir’s director, grasped the situation in an instant and got the choir to moderate its sound. Guy was impressive; an excellent, empathic and bright teacher, who wanted nothing but the best. He understood the choir’s need for confidence immediately, although the rehearsal was still a little ragged in parts. Guy moved between berating the choir and building their confidence quickly. He never for an instant allowed the choir to become despondent or let their confidence sag.
I have never been much of a fan for popular choral music. Now I’m almost a convert, although I’m afraid that parts of both choir’s repertoire’s did not work for me. I felt it might have been best for Cardiff to have left the “rhythm of life” vibrating in a hole elsewhere. Similarly, L’Envol’h’s rendition of “Somewhere over a Rainbow” may have been best sent back to the land of Oz!
By the time of the live performance, the choirs had come together. Cardiff Male Choir was electrifying. Their performance was so good, it gave me goose pimples and made my hairs stand on end. It was a knock out! I’m no music critic, so I’ll have to share my uninformed opinions in layman’s words. What I loved about this choir was the way its different voices; baritone, tenor, bass, all played their own part in every piece they sang, but all hung together too. There was no imbalance in sound. It was always a single choir with a single voice merging its sounds across different vocal ranges in a way that sounded homogeneous and harmonious. It was like an orchestra where the sounds of the tympani, the violin and the piccolo may be distinct, but where each makes its contribution to an overall single musical sound.
At times, L’Envol’h was not always together in the same way. Occasionally they lacked homogeneity and I wondered if the sopranos were giving their own solo performance. But I would not wish to be too critical of them either, as after all, I cannot sing. Although I might like to try one day, but not in French! L’Envol’h’s performance had enormous energy, presence and charm. It was wonderful, but in different ways from the Cardiff Choir. Overall I felt their choral style was better suited to a more sacred classical repertoire, but I loved their energy in “Sing and Swing”. As a cockney from my part of the world might have said, “They gave it large!” L’Envol’h had the most wonderful stage presence that combined passion and a true delicacy of harmony. One of the best moments of the weekend for me was watching L’Envol’h sing and having fun doing it.
I took pictures of the entire weekend that you can find here . This is a picture of L’Envol’h singing “Sing and Swing”:
How much fun is that!
What I admired about both choirs and especially L’Envol’h was the passion for their craft, their enormous desire to perform and entertain to the best of their ability. It was impressive beyond words.
Much more to say…maybe later…