Roger Waters and The Scary Potential of Professionalism

When Pink Floyd first released The Wall in 1979 it drew a lot of criticism from some of the more radical critics of the time for being 'self-indulgent' grammar school angst, and so on at a time when progressive rock was seen as not politically correct, to say the least!Needless to say, while The Wall has now become established as a major achievement in rock history, the critics that hated it have been all but forgotten. In the new film release of The Wall performed live by Roger Waters and his band, we get a superb demonstration of how professionalism can push creative ventures way beyond expected levels of satisfaction into truly remarkable territory.

Heroes and performers can disappoint of course. The sports stars that fail to turn in a world class showing on the day that it matters are a good example.But professionalism when taken to its height can result in a level of consistency that almost defies belief. The Wall starts with a dramatic crescendo and builds from there, in a display of audacity and imagination on a scale very few artists can contemplate. As the concert progresses, interspersed with the narrative of Waters himself driving down to southern Italy to discover his father's war memorial, one wonders how such a down-to-earth seeming guy could pull off such a spectacle. Back in the stadium, the imagery becomes more potent, symbols overlaying symbols as we are taken further into the existential battle zone of Pink, the rock star protagonist's tortured world. Grandiose, yes. Subtle, no! Just when you think things can't get any more intense, we are taken to a new level. Waters clearly having the time of his life while turning in a performance of measured perfection.

Should we care about the fate of a successful rock star that has made a mess of his life? The Wall as a symbol takes us deeper, as Liam Neeson points out in the tribute/ introduction to this spectacle. For him, it represents the barrier he built between himself and the world, freezing out the possibility of a meaningful connection with existence. The Wall is an inner wall that we build as protection from a threatening and unmanageable world, between what we see as our vulnerable selves and a world that we must at all costs keep excluded. When seen in this way, Water's exaggerated characters, including the protagonist, fall into place as archetypal rather than specific. At the same time, the connection with Water's own circumstances are made ambiguous by the parallel story line, the loss of father and grandfather in two world wars and his obsession with wartime imagery.

The concert finale of The Trial brings us the magnificent animations of Gerald Scarfe's wife, mother and judge projected in monstrous proportions on a wall that covers the entire stage. Waters holds his nerve flawlessly to the end with the excellent back up musicians going with him the whole distance.

If you haven't acquainted yourself with the phenomenon that is Roger Water's The Wall, this new release is the perfect opportunity. War, loss, Oedipus, isolation, mental disintegration, neo-fascism, drug addiction, oppression, dictators, despair. It's all here. What more could you ask for?
     

Rihanna comes out for the gentleman!

Respect to Rihanna for her recent statements on men. In an interview with the Evening Standard she describes her personal malaise in the area of relationships with guys, and wonders despairingly why they/we are not gentlemen anymore. "They think that...." she says, "if you take a chair out for a lady, or you're nice or even affectionate to your girl in front of your boys, you're less of a man. It's so sick. They won't be a gentleman because that makes them appear soft."

Leaving aside the discussion as to whether Rihanna is actually 'a lady', she does make a significant point which, when we follow its train of thought seems to lead us into a quagmire of gender-based contradictions.
Young men, like young women, are at the receiving end of a tidal wave of images that suggest, if not actually dictate, the way they should 'be' and what is acceptable, desirable and undesirable for a man to strive for in these times. One of the first to be accused and held responsible must surely be the Hollywood film industry which produces extremely potent role models and stories that undoubtedly leave a hefty imprint on the collective psyche. If we look at those Hollywood heroes we see that, since the time of the first Rocky movies, the male blueprint laid down by the industry has become increasingly tough, macho, pumped up, violent etc. Hugh Jackman, for example does not strike one as much of a book-reading man of sophistication. We also note that unmasculine men are often portrayed as suspicious and untrustworthy in these genres. There are exceptions of course, but on the whole it is muscle that seems to win out as the number one quality for a man to possess, just like for women it is a slim waistline and an inflatable chest. Englishmen are usually portrayed as villains with suspect sexual tendencies in the Hollywood genre too, which further compounds the suggestion that sophistication in a man is not to be pursued.

Such stereotypes are swallowed whole, and to some extent we participate in their propagation when we pay to see such movies. Young guys get the message that ruggedness, not sensitivity is to be cultivated. Male rap stars write ludicrous lyrics that are insulting to women and carry violent implications. Such 'music' is pumped across the globe, the rap stars are seen to become conspicuously wealthy and then we wonder why our young men are growing up with misogynist tendencies! We can begin to see how crazy and out-of-whack the whole picture actually is.

In the 1970's things were different. The cult of the hippy made it cool for men to show their sensitivity towards nature and to openly express their spiritual leanings, but all that changed in the 80's when inner searching gave way to materialism and it's attendant hubris. To display one's wealth rather than one's earth-consciousness became the preferred magnet for female attention, and of course most women participated (and still participate) in this by declaring themselves 'material girls'. Repulsed by male arrogance and violent tendencies, many women continue to hold out an immature longing for the strong armed hero to sweep them off their feet. But if brutishness is what you want, brutishness is what you will get, especially if you are a beautiful woman!

To further complicate matters there is the argument that women are actually far more attracted to husky-voiced hunks than they are to men of learning and sensitivity. After all, we're talking polar attraction here, aren't we? If men and women become more like each other, won't we lose the polarity that makes.....well, the world go round? Possibly not. Surely we have come further than such primitive imperatives would suggest and must affirm a more refined definition of positive gender identity.

Rihanna's statement that she's holding out for a gentleman rather than a hero is a positive and sensible one from an unexpected quarter. Let's hope that more prominent females have the good sense to lead men away from dysfunctional role templates and towards a more mature aspiration, even if it does sound a bit old fashioned.

So you wanna be an innovator?

The idea of being an innovator may sound very nice or appealing, but what does it really take to be an innovator and how do we know if we are on the right track?

One way of testing whether or not your ideas are truly penetrating is to, obviously share them with others. Some people will probably find them 'interesting', some will become converts almost immediately, but the real test is whether or not your ideas seem to cause offence among the 'business as usual' thinkers that carry on their lives as if the answer to everything is obvious and plain common sense! You'll know if you are onto something interesting when these types not only oppose your ideas, but seem to take them as personal affronts. In time, you'll come to recognise the peculiar quality of this type of resistance because it has a particularly nasty undertone. When you first start to innovate freely and experience this phenomenon, you may find it disturbing and want to retreat or even feel as if you should apologise. You may even decide that innovation is simply too much grief and go back to doing things 'their' way or continue your work in secret. On the other hand, if you persist, you'll come to understand that such reactions are a sure sign that you've hit on something meaningful and that they are just part of the package. I'm not talking here about trying to offend people by making gratuitously extreme statements.I mean that when you start asking certain questions about how things are done, and why they are done this way, you will see how threatened some people apparently feel by the implications of your sincere desire to push forward into new territory. The solution? Just understand, and appreciate what you're getting yourself into.

New feminists and Taoism

Recently we have seen several high-profile individuals such as Emma Watson ‘come out’ and declare themselves as ‘feminists’. Presumably this is a gesture designed to improve the public image of feminism, and somehow make it more acceptable. However, it is by no means clear what they actually mean when they say they are ‘feminists’.One can’t help but wonder if these individuals themselves really know what they mean when they say they are feminists. Emma Watson has mentioned something about standing up for women’s rights in Africa, or elsewhere and of course this is commendable. But this not really a feminist issue, rather it is about basic human rights. Believing that men and women have equal rights is no longer a feminist issue. It is taken as read that it concerns everyone and that any other type of view is unacceptable. So what really IS a feminist? Who can be a feminist? Nobody seems to have an answer to this question but here are a few ideas:

1     A feminist is someone that believes that our world needs to move in a ‘feminine’ direction by becoming more caring, and more nurturing of the values that we associate with people that call themselves ‘women’.
2.       A feminist is someone that believes that women should have more rights and more power in society.
3.       A feminist is someone that rejects traditional stereotypes associated with male and female genders.

These definitions of feminism are quite different in various ways.  The first one is about feminine values and the type of society we want to create.  If we look at Geerd Hofstede’s index of cross-cultural distinctions we see that some societies value Femininity more than others. Examples of this typically are Scandinavian societies that appear to be more ‘caring’ in the way they are structured. On the other hand, according to Hofstede Japan scores very low on the index for feminine values. Anyone that has actual experience of Japan however would probably dispute such a result and we soon find ourselves in difficulties here: What really ARE feminine values and how do they manifest in a society? Speaking personally as someone that has lived in Japan for example, I would say that overall and with all things considered, Japan is a more’ caring’ society than the UK, which apparently contradicts Hofstede’s findings.

The other two definitions above are more similar to each other and imply a more political stance for a feminist. The second really amounts to an interest group for 50% of the population and is not really about values. It’s more about women saying “Here we are and we mean business”, which is, after all not a very feminine thing to be saying. It leads us to saying things such as: Do feminists actually want to be women or not? This implies an existential crisis behind feminist outbursts, a kind of search for an identity or re-definition of women’s role in society. Again, nobody seems to have clarity on what this means and how it can actually support the interests of women or society.

The third definition above again suggests a re-ordering of roles and relationships with regard to gender. But what this really means or what it would look like is not clear. It is also not clear whether or not it would contribute to the quality of life that people, including women experience now.

One possible solution to this confusing situation is to turn to Eastern philosophy for insight. In the Taoist principles of Yin and Yang we get a different frame on the whole issue, that moves us away from intellectualism and political posturing towards a more profound connection with what makes us who we are in this world. The genius of Eastern thought lies in its’ simplicity. Taoism takes us into the energies that govern our existence, giving us insight that resonates with quantum science at a very deep level. The principles of Yin and Yang deal with optimum balance and well-being. There is a simple clarity in the principles that go beyond the confusion that politically-oriented ‘intellectual’ western-style discourse gets us into. We are after all, essentially fields of energy moving through a universe of energies that are interacting in various ways. Taoism says that nothing is wrong. We already possess everything we need to be in balance, whole and complete on this earth. The problems begin when we confuse ourselves and get out of balance. This happens when we disconnect from our centre and identify with a false identity. Unfortunately, western civilisation is based on and continually encourages us to engage with this whole confusion rather than re-connect with the whole. Osho has pointed this out in a detailed way in his speeches as a critic of the West.

When individuals are out of balance and sick, then naturally the society will also be so. Clarity is needed to bring people towards a healthful existence so that they can truly move ahead and contribute their gifts to society. The problem is that there are too many voices giving out confusing and unhelpful messages. When people start to identify with political principles and base their life around intellectual ideas they soon get lost or mired in conflicts that in general do not bring us closer to healthy solutions.  The term ‘feminist’ has a cache of conflict and division that does not really serve the cause of unity and wholeness. Seeing and feeling beyond gender politics to a more underlying and fundamental pattern of harmony or disharmony, firstly within ourselves and then as a society, is more likely to bring people closer together in reconciliation.