Re: Re: RE: RE: Re: Re: Re: Cage's prejudices

On 06/21/2011 07:42 PM, Ian Pace wrote:
> Cage spoke and wrote often about his social/political views; it was 
> hardly as if he was disengaged from debate. And on several occasions 
> he made very explicit his opposition to active politics and protest 
> movements, as with:
>
> 'I am interested in social ends, but not in political ends, because 
> politics deals with power, and society deals with numbers of 
> individuals; and I'm interested in both single individuals and large 
> numbers or medium numbers or any kinds or numbers of individuals. In 
> other words, I'm interested in society, not for purposes of power, but 
> for purposes of cooperation and enjoyment. ' (Interview in Source 
> (1969), cited in Richard Kostelanetz, Conversing with Cage, second 
> edition (New York and London: Routledge, 2003), p. 274)
>
> or
>
> My notion of how to proceed in a society to bring change is not to 
> protest the thing that is evil, but rather to let it die its own 
> death. And I think we can state that the power structure is dying 
> because it cannot make any inspiring statements about what it is doing.
>
> I think that protests about these things, contrary to what has been 
> said, will give it the kind of life that a fire is given when you fan 
> it, and that it would be best to ignore it, put your attention 
> elsewhere, take actions of another kind of positive nature, rather 
> than continue to give life to the negative by negating it. (Cage, 
> 'Diary: How to Improve the World (You Will Only Make Matters Worse) 
> Continued 1968 (Revised)', in M; Writings '67-'72 (Middletown, CN: 
> Wesleyan University Press, 1969), p. 12)
>
> or
>
> 'Protest movements could quite easily, ad despite themselves, lead in 
> the opposite direction, to a reinforcement of law and order. There is 
> in acceptance and non-violence an underestimated revolutionary force. 
> but instead, protest is all too often absorbed into the flow of power, 
> because it limits itself to reaching for the same old mechanisms of 
> power, which is the worst way to challenge authority! We'll never get 
> away from it that way!' (Interviewed by Daniel Charles, c. 1970, in 
> For the Birds (London: Marion Boyars, 1981), p. 236)
>
> The last comment in particular makes a lot of powerful points, but 
> Cage's resignation (with respect to 'acceptance', non-violence is 
> another matter) seems particularly casual in light of some of the 
> achievements of protest in the years leading up to then. How would 
> Rosa Parks have felt about this, say? The second quote I find actually 
> quite crass when considering the vital work of human rights 
> organisations or dissident groups in bringing to wider attention 
> terrible human rights abuses in various regimes, and protesting these 
> - I am pretty sure many such regimes would prefer Cage's option. With 
> respect to lynchings, Jim Crow laws, etc., would it have been 'best to 
> ignore it, put your attention elsewhere'?
>
> If Cage simply had not had much to say about any form of politics, it 
> would be one thing, but this was far from the case. As he had so much 
> to say on this subject, it's only fair that these might be 
> interrogated. If it is all right to cite them positively, as many 
> writers on Cage have done, then it should be all right to look at them 
> more critically as well.
>
> Best,
> Ian
>
>
>



Great discussion, thanks a lot to everyone involved.


I'd like to quote Satie as Cage did in his lecture for the French 
composer when the latter says:

"Personally, I am neither good nor bad. I sway, if one may say that. 
Actually I have never done anyone any harm - or good either."

or Buckminster Fuller when he said that "he was working to make the 
existent system obsolete". (I think) I can see why Cage mentioned these 
lines or why he was so into Duchamp's works which were not a matter of 
"being bad or good" but something beyond this uninteresting polar 
situation. It's the same thread (to me) that ties the anarchy and 
politics issues and the way he treated them. Or maybe re-treated them:-)

Ian anticipated me with a couple of appropriate quotations such as: 
"protesting it's like throwing gas over a fire" or "protest is being 
absorbed by the power forces". Cage would rather continue without a 
qualm on his path (emptiness-silence) following his strict principles 
(which don't imply contradiction with anarchy as I had wrongly thought 
so far) as that's the way to forge ahead (citing his "living on water" 
mesostic here). I feel like the reason why these statements still 
generate this kind of discussions must be found both in a more critical 
(and fairer) view of Cage's opinions and in his being outside any kind 
of model we try to place him in.

Of course the real troubles (racism, poverty, wars, political climate, 
etc) he was surrounded by remained, which is why his acceptance position 
was sometimes valued as a retreat/defeat and therefore inserted again in 
the cause-effect scheme such acceptance refused. But even if we state 
that his thoughts weren't practical/concrete enough, had the remedies 
then devised proved to work so far? At least Cage offers a different (I 
should have said "outside") point of view that (hopefully) compels us to 
think of a new kind of solution.

Ian is right when he says that /"...With respect to lynchings, Jim Crow 
laws, etc., would it have been 'best to ignore it, put your attention 
elsewhere'?"/. Of course not. But (I think) Cage was pointing at the 
root of the issue. WHY those things happened and HOW TO prevent them to 
happen again. We need a long-term solution as well as a immediate one 
for present troubles, that's the big challenge.

-- 

Stefano

"When we separate music from
  life what we get is art
  (a compendium of masterpieces)" - John Cage