shakahislop
Well-known member
one retromanic cultural thread that's been on my mind, submitted to the public intellectuals of dissensus for a sanity check. saw mirror last night. running through all kinds of discussions in the public realm now is the idea that things used to be better. it's in every new york discussion (if new york can die then so can london), every music discussion (yeah it's alright/shit now but it was better in 92 / 1969), everything in the UK and US left (it was better before neoliberalism / with the postwar consensus / before 2008), zoomer discussion about the supposed glory days of the internet (it was better in 2008 before social media), those photos of Iran before the islamic revolution, discussion about hostel backpacking, plastic people was better before the smoking ban, discussion about films, about how rap used to be better, glastonbury was better before the big fence, any discussion of anywhere that's become touristed out, anywhere that's become gentrified and so on and so on. i can already see it coming with something like nowadays, which is rumoured to be closing imminently for lease reasons, it's such a big deal here and it's irreplaceable.
some of this is very legit. ko pha ngan probably was better in 1990 and it probably was great to be raving in 1992. the other thing that people always say in response is that 'you have just got old and you're glorifying your youth', and there's truth in that too.
the task really is to split these things out and work out what's real and what's not. the other thing that I think is going on in that mix which people don't mention is i think something about honouring those that came before. it's most obvious with the nyc discourse I think, where there's a certain level of respect for elders who are still about, you still hear the accent in the people over about 50 who are still around. it's like people need to attach a political or value judgement to an observation in order to talk about it when really what they want to say is 'look at that' or 'this has changed'. but wrapped up in that is a certain respect for the lineage and the past.
the other component is a restless and intense dissatisfaction with the present. there is a certain frustration on my part with being told that more or less anything that I'm into is shit now and used to be better before. it's hard to write off what I can see with my own eyes in favour of a past that i mostly didn't see myself. I think there is something really common with human beings about respecting our elders, something to do with a tradition, older brothers and sisters, the people that came before. It's hard to untangle that sentiment from the reality of how things actually were.
In the end all of this is about a collective memory of the past and how we relate to it. If you weren't there yourself you're dealing with something that's been constructed, particularly by words and language. The other thing that's going on with some of this is leftist negativity, which takes a different flavour from conservative negativity. The way that politics gets wrapped around interpretations of the recent past is a whirlpool in the water we are swimming in, if you're interested in these kinds of things
some of this is very legit. ko pha ngan probably was better in 1990 and it probably was great to be raving in 1992. the other thing that people always say in response is that 'you have just got old and you're glorifying your youth', and there's truth in that too.
the task really is to split these things out and work out what's real and what's not. the other thing that I think is going on in that mix which people don't mention is i think something about honouring those that came before. it's most obvious with the nyc discourse I think, where there's a certain level of respect for elders who are still about, you still hear the accent in the people over about 50 who are still around. it's like people need to attach a political or value judgement to an observation in order to talk about it when really what they want to say is 'look at that' or 'this has changed'. but wrapped up in that is a certain respect for the lineage and the past.
the other component is a restless and intense dissatisfaction with the present. there is a certain frustration on my part with being told that more or less anything that I'm into is shit now and used to be better before. it's hard to write off what I can see with my own eyes in favour of a past that i mostly didn't see myself. I think there is something really common with human beings about respecting our elders, something to do with a tradition, older brothers and sisters, the people that came before. It's hard to untangle that sentiment from the reality of how things actually were.
In the end all of this is about a collective memory of the past and how we relate to it. If you weren't there yourself you're dealing with something that's been constructed, particularly by words and language. The other thing that's going on with some of this is leftist negativity, which takes a different flavour from conservative negativity. The way that politics gets wrapped around interpretations of the recent past is a whirlpool in the water we are swimming in, if you're interested in these kinds of things
