Occasionally the thought crosses my mind to write a book or two. With almost 4,000 posts, many of them a thousand words, this blog already comprises the equivalent of quite a few books. But the thought was sparked again recently when I was introducing an old friend to the music of Bruckner. He read some stuff on his own and found it too technical, so I sent him a link to a post I did which he said he found much more useful. He's a painter and spent a session listening to Bruckner and quite enjoyed it.
So the thought has crossed my mind to write a book on something I have become more aware of over the years: the triumph of credentialism in advanced societies. I am more aware of this because nowadays I live a life that is mercifully free of credentialism.
Let me share some details: I am going to design and build a house for myself in the next couple of years and there are essentially no credentialed persons involved. In order to find a suitable and affordable lot I searched for a few months without much success. Finally, just before going to Europe for three weeks in August I asked my long-time driver (also a musician) to have a look around. He comes from a large family (eight brothers, five sisters) and seems to know everyone. When I got back he had a lead for me and I liked it. Here is a video, my driver, wearing sunglasses is in the middle:
I am buying one normal sized lot in the middle of a few dozen lots, all surveyed. It appears as if mine will be the first house. Nice view of the hills. This is a 360° shot.
Here is what is uncredentialed about it. My driver, of course, has no real estate credentials and neither did the seller's representative. There is no deed to the property yet (though there will be in a few years) so I had my lawyer (yes, she has credentials) look over the very skimpy papers which she said were ok. No escrow, no wire transfers and no checks. Instead I handed over a bag of actual cash and now have a "Carta de posesión" from the local village that says I own the land. I did have a surveyor mark the boundaries, but I'm not sure what his qualifications are. Civil engineer? So there were no closing costs and there will be no taxes and no building permit is required.
My architect, Canadian, has no credentials. She was a photographer and is an excellent designer, though with no credentials there either. Her builder might be an engineer, I'm not sure. But none of his crew have any credentials. The reason we can do things this way is because we are in Mexico. Even if we did have to get a building permit, which we don't, no building inspector would come. I don't think we have any, just people from the archeological branch of government in the case of historic buildings.
Looking back on my career as a musician, right from the beginning I had no faith in credentials. My first instrument was electric bass in a rock group and when I converted to classical music and became a classical guitarist the first ones I met, while enthusiasts, had no credentials. I finally learned the trade with José Tomás in Spain, but I have no idea if he had any degrees. His "credential" was to be one of a few select students of Andrés Segovia--a great artist, but with no credentials that I am aware of. My first exposure to academia was wonderful in that I became exposed to the whole panoply of Western Civilization, but as regards the guitar, it was disenchanting.
I arrived at university, guitar in hand, only to find that the guitar instructor, a fine musician and student of Julian Bream (no other credentials) had left town so I was handed off to a couple of hack amateurs while they tried to persuade me that my instrument(s) were actually lute and piano. Nope. Later in life I did attend a serious musical institution, the Mozarteum in Salzburg, but at the end of the summer master class, I didn't even bother picking up my certificate. As far as I was concerned your only "credential" as a performer was your last concert. Funny story, I was riding around with a retired organist looking at houses and he was bragging about attending Juilliard. I have a weak character so I was unable to restrain myself from casually mentioning that I attended one of the very few musical institutions with a higher reputation than Juilliard. That caused a deafening silence. Yes, the Mozarteum. Mea culpa!
So I actually have a long-standing bias against credentialism that extends to the present day and is even stronger now. Of course, in Mexico, this is a fairly common view. No-one has much faith in government bureaucrats.
But when I visit supposedly more advanced countries like Canada, Austria, or Germany, I can see the devastation that out-of-control credentialism has wrought. Universities are rigid ideological camps, cities are ruined by zoning and ordnances to the point that houses are unaffordable, and renovations are impossible. The costs of everything keep climbing and the reasons are connected to the layers of bureaucracy and regulation that control every aspect of life. The benefits of a rational society are eaten up by the parasitism of the unproductive. These are vampire societies with a minority (though, sadly, not a tiny minority) sucking the life out of the people. In Canada in the last few years, while the number of employed in the private sector increased by 3.5% the number of government workers increased by 31%.
But statistics are not as important as the feel, the attitude of societies. In Canada, small businesses have almost been erased from the landscape, crushed by taxes and regulations, things that only big businesses can easily tolerate. People are junior partners in their own lives. And yet, all I hear is discussion of how much more taxes can be raised, how many more government regulations are required, how more minutely people's lives have to be controlled.
On the other hand, the best thing I have heard lately is that Javier Milei, the president of Argentina, is actually doing the right things. He just got rid of the entire federal tax department, a hive of corruption, and it will be replaced by a new, much smaller and more efficient department. I'm sure Canada, and many other countries, could benefit from the same kind of treatment.
So that's just a brief sketch of a prospective short book. What do you think readers? Scandalized? It's not political exactly, it's more anti-political.
Now some suitable music:
19 comments:
Progressive reviews would be dismissive, even vitriolic. Me, I’d pre-order the book in a New York minute.
I'm perplexed, every time I decide to say something radical here, all I get is enthusiastic support! Thanks, Jim.
https://www.amazon.com/Credential-Society-Historical-Sociology-Stratification/dp/0231192355/ref=sr_1_1?crid=34PH2ZNR6363S&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.lqbzhjkVqm7nOSJSr0k3pU5AGdHe67MVjbPLRHYN3A-w_1vP-K8pB5ySaYyuHHW6Odp6DqSKV1_FGgnmCa2c62133XaGTr3T1sWU0lUPoQ3o9MSVKhT9mQWHAv5o-y4g6YtABpelQzyKB88hoCf9voXfuNA0rVTGGCVjLVaIduxNmpX8Uhkywvp5rnXcIWtCK38LMccJ12ROySH5K8Byl5YHsikWSVJDnLAfmUj6vbE.vg6gaD-xdLj-lD_FpoINUt9rRpq-ci3yHrIppGfpjwI&dib_tag=se&s=books&sprefix=credentials+society%2Cstripbooks%2C59
Thanks, Anon, that's fantastically on point.
I am not sure it's radical to express doubts about credentialism in itself, since credentialism seems like a cultural subset of technocracy and warnings against technocracy and its associated elitism go back to figures like Jacques Ellul's The Technological Society or James Burnham's The Managerial Revolution.
It may be "less" radical among guitarists to have a concern about credentialism, in a way, because, as Frank Zappa put it, he came across no end of guitarists who basically thought "I went to Berklee and I can play fast so I should be in a band." :)
Yes, quite true. My thoughts expressed here seem radical to me because the environment I spent most of my life in seems utterly opposed to them. Academia runs on credentials, after all, and I spent quite a few years teaching in academia. Also, apart from Javier Milei, few politicians express the need to get rid of most of the bureaucratic barnacles on society. By this measure even Donald Trump seems a mild-mannered moderate.
My thinking here is partly inspired by Public Choice Theory which seems much government action, such as the creating of large departments and ministries with enormous numbers of employees, as being simply self-serving.
I know you are looking for new directions for your blog, but I would be very disappointed if general political commentary like became a bigger part of it. A few weeks ago I complained that substantial classical-music news and debate has become rather harder to find on the internet, but far too much of what art news remains has (like Slipped Disc) tried to link to more general political issues. Whether in a mercenary bid for more views and engagement, or because the proprietors of those venues are Highly Online People and this is all they think about.
I share your sentiments entirely. But here's the thing, I have done literally hundreds of posts exploring various aesthetic questions (just search the blog) and they have received almost no comments. In general, when I delve into a lot of issues regarding theory, or history, there are few comments. As you know, I avoid direct political discussion unless it relates to music somehow. But anytime we stray near a political question, we tend to pick up a lot of comments. And, there are posts on various random topics that often surprise me with a lot of comments.
"I have done literally hundreds of posts exploring various aesthetic questions (just search the blog) and they have received almost no comments"
But that's the thing: since so much of the modern internet is dependent on increasing engagement and views e.g. through artificial means like political commentary or linking to culture-war issues, receiving almost no comments is a sign that one is doing something right nowadays! You just need to see from your web-server logs that you are continuing to draw an audience. (I’m not sure what analytics you get if you’re hosted on Blogger instead of your own server.)
I agree with Anonymous from 11-7-2024 2:57 that no comments can be a good thing.
I'd rather not belabor the lengthy history of my blog but back in the day I tackled some fairly incendiary issues related to a by now defunct regional megachurch. When doing something like investigative/citizen journalism blogging I found it was better to have everything in moderation rather than open court comments.
Thanks Anonymous and Wenatchee for your helpful observations. Yes, I have from time to time thought that I only get a significant number of comments if a lot of people disagree with me. When I write a good and insightful post, often no-one will feel the need to comment. This might apply more to non-political arenas as I notice that in places like the Wall Street Journal, pieces deemed to be significant or important get a wealth of comments, most from people in agreement. I do get pretty good traffic for a blog this specialized, so perhaps you are right, Anonymous.
Wenatchee, I'm not looking to comments for validation--I welcome a good argument. But I do look to them for some sign that what I am doing is useful, instructive, or at least entertaining. Absent any of those, what's the point?
But since my hanging up the blog post, I do feel a renewed energy coming from some of the comments and just from the sense that it is time to change the focus.
This is why I recommended something more specialized or at least less general. My sense is fewer people are interested in music analysis given the use of sound manipulation software and algorithmic aids to songwriting. Opinions about composers will be added to a flood of other online opinions whether insightful or not. You would have to have a contrarian blog on popular music that would attract thousands of haters and hundreds of fans to get a bit of notice I fear.
I've found one of the major appeals of your blog has been the erudite connections you make between music, art, history, philosophy, even architecture. The observations you have made regarding the symmetry between different artistic disciplines of any given period, for example, these are both educational and fascinating. You have probably exhausted most of these ideas, though.
I agree with previous comments that your posts are so well-informed that when you get no comments, we probably just agree with you! Maybe write one semi-controversial post per fortnight to bring out your dormant commentators! We are still here!
Again, thanks for some very helpful comments. Maury, I have never followed a particular plan or topic for the blog--I just write about what I notice, what interests me and what catches my fancy, not necessarily in that order. So I don't know how to make it more specialized. Actually, I think it is extremely specialized already.
Anon, thanks so much for your observations. But I hope I haven't exhausted the possible relationships and connections among various facets of culture. Is that even possible?
Bryan, I was just referring to your "Retirement" post of a week or so ago in which you expressed loss of interest in blogging due to fewer comments and reader engagement. Sure, if you want to retract that post and continue on as before there is no problem doing that. But obviously things will continue to cycle down as the trend is not going to reverse.
Regretfully I have to concur with posts above that the daily round of jejune politics does seem to energize interest. It also seems to affect concert attendance as local concerts with pieces that have some political connection are well attended and discussed in the media and those with the standard repertoire have less and less audience. Putting the arts as adjuncts of any politics whatsoever is anathema to me but that's where we are.
We live in an extremely politicized culture and I suspect most people have difficulty understanding culture that is free of politics. Why did Schoenberg write that piece of piano music in free atonal style? Was it because he was Jewish, male, depressed, angry? Well, no, he just needed to explore that particular sound world.
I'm not sure how we push back against all this politicization, but it won't be just by ignoring it as I think we have tried that.
Bryan.
I agree wholeheartedly that the arts as well as the sciences need to be free of any political control or influence from any direction. To me Art and Science are far far above politics because they aim at the sublime/beauty and truth respectively, which politics never does. This is not to say that governance is unimportant but it is mired in many factors that do not affect Science and Art. This is why I quixotically continue to point to the Medieval Quadrivium and Trivium that gave autonomy to the sciences and arts despite the overwhelming influence of theology in that era.
Sorry I forgot to name myself above.
Thanks, Maury. I bow to no-one in my regard for any antiquarian impulses! If it is old and forgotten, it must be interesting!
Post a Comment