Shameless: A History of Show Business and the Culture Wars by Kliph Nesteroff, Abrams, 312 pages, $30
The first paragraph of the book jacket states: “It is generally accepted that we live in unprecedented times and that people today are too sensitive to object to the actions of actors, comedians and filmmakers of the past. Modern experts would have us believe that previous generations Americans have tougher skin and rarely complain, but does this claim stand up to scrutiny?
There’s a good point behind the hyperbole. People tend to believe—and experts, politicians, and activists tend to claim—that whatever problems plague them are worse than ever. Why? Because these things are happening now. for us. Past problems aren’t as urgent or important because they happened to someone else and things were fine anyway (or if not, at least those problems are over).
So Kliv Nesterov’s Outrageous Has a decent premise. Alas, it also has major flaws.
The subtitle of this book is Showbiz History and the Culture Wars, and Nesterov has some expertise – at least in the former. he has written before comedianIt’s undeniably a lively and informative work that attempts to cram the history of American comedy into a few hundred pages.
The history of public backlash against American entertainment is a more manageable topic, although still a big problem. Although Nesterov first complained about blackface and minstrel shows in the 1800s, much of the book deals with post-World War II controversies. He also tells some funny stories about the many attempts to cancel movies, music, TV shows, anything new and different.
Some of these stories may be familiar. Many people know about resistance Everything is in the family It faced issues with vulgarity and racism when it first aired in the 1970s; CBS persevered, and the sitcom went on to become one of the biggest TV shows of all time. But how many people remember Brigitte loves Berniethe subsequent sitcom Everything is in the family One season? Loosely adapted from the 1920s Broadway blockbuster Abbey’s Irish Rose, a show about a marriage between a Jewish man and a Catholic woman. It received so much pushback — including bomb threats — that CBS canceled it, despite its high ratings.
While the stories are interesting, the book’s overall narrative is wobbly. It tends to move from one anecdote to another without enough transition. Outrageous It’s less a history of a phenomenon than a chronological data dump.
There were also some errors in the study. For example, Nesterov claimed that Cole Porter wrote “Do It Again” (I assume he was referring to the George Gershwin tune), while at the same time crediting Irving for Porter’s song “Love For Sale” ·Berlin. He falsely asserted that an episode of the sitcom was written by David Letterman good time. (This episode stars Jay Leno in a small role. Maybe that’s where the confusion arises.)
But the big problem is that Nesterov has a big ax to grind – it’s so big that it ends up taking over the book, turning it into a lengthy essay.
Indeed, any conservative who claims that censorship today is worse than ever before lacks historical perspective. Still, that doesn’t mean there’s nothing to complain about, or that we should simply dismiss their claims. Nesterov writes as if we should.
Nesterov noted how the John Birch Society viewed the ubiquitous communist conspiracy in the 1960s. He believes that their disreputable philosophy, far from disappearing, has been renamed. The recent culture wars funded by partisan foundations use fear tactics to fool people into supporting otherwise unpopular policies. (Interestingly, my Republican friends say the same thing about the left.)
According to Nesterov (and the partisan experts he cites), right-wing think tanks tell media spokespeople what to say, often by paying large sums to build consensus. (It’s unclear what he thinks the left is doing at the same time. I guess they’re just telling the truth and being ignored.) Additionally, under the guise of supporting free speech, right-wing conspirators send “agitators to speak at universities” as protests When it breaks out, this opposition is used as evidence of the campus’s opposition to free speech, funding is threatened, and legal action is taken until the campus becomes welcoming to the think tank.
Wow. It’s a conspiracy theory almost worthy of the Bircher family.
Let me propose a different narrative. Nesterov seems to think the right has gotten worse in recent decades. For the worse or not, it has definitely changed. But hasn’t the left changed too?
Many would say that decades ago, the movement for greater civil liberties was dominated by the left. (Some of the most famous student protests of the sixties centered on Berkeley’s free speech movement.) The courts responded by interpreting the First Amendment to guarantee greater freedom of expression. Outside the legal realm, much of the country and the left have adopted a cultural ethos that allowing people to speak their minds is a good thing, even if some find it offensive or dangerous.
But over time, many on the left changed their stance and became suspicious of such freedoms—at least among the groups they opposed. Therefore, the “provocateurs” Nesterov warned were not only protested at the university: they were disinvited, shouted at, or physically attacked. Meanwhile, students have been disciplined and professors fired for expressing views that, while outside the mainstream of larger society, are considered objectionable on campus.
What’s more, this culture has spread to the world outside the school. Newspaper editor fired for publishing editorial that caused problems for staff. Employees at large companies worry that expressing unorthodox political views will get them fired. People get deplatformed on social media for questionable reasons. And, of course, there’s the showbiz culture war—the supposed theme Outrageous– People feel they must publicly express regret for something they said or did in the past or risk not being able to work again.
This isn’t just based on anecdotes. Multiple polls (such as a recent survey of undergraduates by the College Pulse/Foundation for Personal Rights and Expression) suggest that today’s young liberals are more willing than previous generations to shut down speech they find offensive. About four-fifths of liberal or liberal-leaning students believe it is appropriate to report professors for their comments, which is fairly common (but “wrong”), according to the annual American College Student Freedom, Progress and Prosperity Survey conducted by researchers at North Dakota State University. . It’s one thing to debate or protest an idea you don’t like. It’s another thing to try to prevent anyone from hearing them.
When you don’t listen to the other side…well, it’s hard to say it better than John Stuart Mill: “He who knows only his own side of the situation knows little of it.” Unfortunately But today’s left seems more inclined to Oscar Wilde’s Lady Bracknell: “I don’t like arguments of any kind. They are always vulgar and often unconvincing.”
So, yes, there is good reason to worry about canceled events and the related issues of disrupting the right, even if repression in the past has sometimes been worse. If you want to have a serious debate, it’s not enough to just be content with your own arguments. You have to contradict the other person without calling them out for being dishonest, evil, or brainwashed.
Outrageous Begins with a “Note to Readers”: “Please note that some of the material cited in this book contains archaic terminology that may be considered highly offensive by modern standards.” I hope that anyone who reads this or any Anyone who has read a book about history already knows that people in the past thought and spoke differently. A better warning is that Nesterov’s work may claim to be an objective look at cultural history, but there is a controversy lurking within it.
so terrible. There is a lot of good material in it Outrageous. Had the speech been slightly different it might have been a more useful addition to today’s debate.
