- Contemporary progressivism has come to mean papering over material inequality with representational diversity.
Two topics are covered here, the politics of the musical, and the quality of the musical itself.
Has anyone seen it? The performances I've seen in clips and at the Academy Awards seemed... unimpressive. The relentless praise it has received in the media has me baffled.
Edit:
Another passage that represents the point the author is trying to make:
- The conservative-liberal D.C. consensus on Hamilton makes perfect sense. The musical flatters both right and left sensibilities. Conservatives get to see their beloved Founding Fathers exonerated for their horrendous crimes, and liberals get to have nationalism packaged in a feel-good multicultural form. The more troubling questions about the country’s origins are instantly vanished, as an era built on racist forced labor is transformed into a colorful, culturally progressive, and politically unobjectionable extravaganza.
This here be some AAA-grade hatorade. Lovin' it. Lands some serious punches:In that respect, Hamilton probably is the “musical of the Obama era,” as The New Yorker called it. Contemporary progressivism has come to mean papering over material inequality with representational diversity. The president will continue to expand the national security state at the same rate as his predecessor, but at least he will be black. Predatory lending will drain the wealth from African American communities, but the board of Goldman Sachs will have several black members. Inequality will be rampant and worsening, but the 1% will at least “look like America.” The actual racial injustices of our time will continue unabated, but the power structure will be diversified so that nobody feels quite so bad about it. Hamilton is simply this tendency’s cultural-historical equivalent; instead of worrying ourselves about the brutal origins of the American state, and the lasting economic effects of those early inequities, we can simply turn the Founding Fathers black and enjoy the show.
I've been told the music is really good. I've exclusively been told this by people who didn't study classical music or musical theater in high school or college. I've listened to a bit, found it uninspiring. Edit* I felt like I should give this a fair listen. Started the soundtrack a second ago. Ok. I tried. Listened to it once all the way through, got about halfway through the second run then stopped. I stand by my original estimation. It's not bad by any means, like, the music all fits together well, and has some interesting moments but it doesn't engage me all that much. Maybe the stage show really makes it work well?
The thesis of the article is that Hamilton is such a 1%er corner-case self-congratulatory celebration of elitism that the chattering class has completely lost sight of the fact that their tastes are now utterly alien to the other 99% of America. It represents the cultural experience of the elite as a complete and utter bubble, and Hamilton as a vehicle to make that bubble even more insular.
I posted this article more for the discussion it might start than the actual quality of the article itself, but I think the thesis is slightly different than that. The author approaches it a bit differently than you suggest, arguing that only those with "elite status" have actually even seen it. I don't know, it does seem like the author is saying that the musical is bad, so people who like it are bad while also trying to use that as representation of a more specific idea: What I guess is surprising is that there is near universal praise for it when there seems to be much to critique. It's not challenging or truthful and seems like it has the complexity and depth of an after-school program special. The title of the article is stupid and hyperbolic though.The conservative-liberal D.C. consensus on Hamilton makes perfect sense. The musical flatters both right and left sensibilities. Conservatives get to see their beloved Founding Fathers exonerated for their horrendous crimes, and liberals get to have nationalism packaged in a feel-good multicultural form. The more troubling questions about the country’s origins are instantly vanished, as an era built on racist forced labor is transformed into a colorful, culturally progressive, and politically unobjectionable extravaganza.
If we don't, we aren't paying attention. I often say that I hate musicals but really, Les Miserables is all about the proletariat rising up against the ruling class. Most musicals are, back to Gilbert & Sullivan at least. I mean... - West Side Story - King and I - Fiddler on the Roof - Rent - A Chorus Line Heavy themes in those. Mikado? Even Pirates of Penzance isn't without its social commentary. A Chorus Line, which held the record for longest-running musical for a decade or more, legit has a song about gonorrhea. I think it's fair to say that the musical audience expects challenges and commentary. The argument put forth in the article is that the challenges and commentary presented are those that enforce the white eliteness of the audience, rather than presenting the audience with new perspectives. That said, Les Miserables is all about how the royals suck, so...Do we expect musicals do be challenging or truthful, though?
Looking at art from a Gramscian perspective isn't interesting because of what it tells you about the art, it's interesting because of what looking at the art tells you about the ideology that produced it. Hamilton is the lens to look through, not the thing you're looking at. It's a fault of the essay that that wasn't clear, but the passage kleinbl00 quoted is the meatIn that respect, Hamilton probably is the “musical of the Obama era,” as The New Yorker called it. Contemporary progressivism has come to mean papering over material inequality with representational diversity. The president will continue to expand the national security state at the same rate as his predecessor, but at least he will be black. Predatory lending will drain the wealth from African American communities, but the board of Goldman Sachs will have several black members. Inequality will be rampant and worsening, but the 1% will at least “look like America.” The actual racial injustices of our time will continue unabated, but the power structure will be diversified so that nobody feels quite so bad about it. Hamilton is simply this tendency’s cultural-historical equivalent; instead of worrying ourselves about the brutal origins of the American state, and the lasting economic effects of those early inequities, we can simply turn the Founding Fathers black and enjoy the show.
Your first quote was the bit that really hit me. (Side note: I'm super glad that someone else here reads Current Affairs. I don't agree with everything they write, to be sure, but it's almost always worth thinking about.) This is probably worth its own post at some point, but I'm sick of bromides and half-assed solutions. What passes for liberalism in the U.S. is at least as guilty of it as conservatives, and I really wish they'd stop.
I read everything they put online. I quite liked this piece on the morality of deporting aliens with a criminal history, for example. I don't agree with everything, as I said, but I think the only article I've read that I found to be outright dumb was their piece on gun control. And that may simply have been an attack of Poe's law.
Do you have a subscription? I'm considering it. This UNLESS THE DEMOCRATS RUN SANDERS, A TRUMP NOMINATION MEANS A TRUMP PRESIDENCY article is looking a lot more prescient than it did 5 months ago. And this Robinson is thought-provoking. They've also got this book giveaway with a print subscription, and, not that I'm lacking for things to read, it'd be nice to finally get a physical copy of Don Quixote.
I don't, but I've considered it often. As I mentioned elsewhere, I like basically everything I've read from them, and agree with most of it. Always makes me think of new things, at least.
I just want to but in here to say that musicals really aren't culturally relevant or impactful anymore. Maybe the people who lead the nation watch them, but ultimately those people are bound to the will of the mass population, who watch easily consumed Hollywood films that don't require live actors and only cost twenty dollars to get a ticket for. Whatever the messages are in this musical, it doesn't matter. Wait, seriously, they turned the founding fathers black? That's fucking hilarious. Edit: The article actually covers this point pretty well: Wow, I came into this being very cynical and expecting a big stupid rant about things that don't matter, but this article is very interesting.Yet because a large fraction of these people are elite taste-makers, Hamilton becomes a topic of disproportionate interest, discussed at unendurable length in The New Yorker and Slate and The New York Times Magazine, yet totally inaccessible to anyone besides the writers and members of their close social networks.