Tom Jenks in The Guardian:

Baldwin was 33 in 1957, when he published his short story Sonny’s Blues, and it might be said that the whole of his lifetime went into the story. Readers today coming for the first time to this tale of Harlem life and heroin addiction might view it in contemporary terms, and there’s no harm in that: the messages in the story are as evergreen as the biblical allusions Baldwin uses in the story. But it is also worth recalling that in 1957 there was no Civil Rights Act, the struggle over Jim Crow laws and segregation had a long way to go, and racial conditions and inequalities were deplorable and disregarded by most white Americans. The story poses two brothers’ estrangement over addiction and their ultimate rapprochement as a quietly implicit analogy to racial division and an inspiration toward unity and love, and rides, as its title suggests, on music, specifically jazz. Only a reader with a heart of stone will fail to be moved to tears of recognition, sorrow and joy when the story reaches its conclusion.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Morten Jensen in Commonweal Magazine:

Like Saul Bellow’s Von Humboldt Fleisher, Hitchens was a “champion detractor,” a terrific hater, and always more fun to read when he was denouncing than when he was praising. Rare is the enemy or ideological foe who gets mentioned in these pages without incurring a quick swat of the pen. Thus, we are treated to “the sinister cretin Reagan,” “that recreational vulpicide Roger Scruton,” “Senator Karl Mundt, a dinosaur Republican and tireless witch-hunter,” “James Jesus Angleton, crazed and criminal head of the CIA,” and so on. Some critics have found such comments silly or bad-mannered. “He was always too ready with abuse,” George Scialabba wrote after Hitchens’s death. I agree, and no doubt being so amused by name-calling is a bad habit, but reading these essays I found it one I was more than happy to indulge.

Less silly and just as amusing are those instances when, simply by exposing them, Hitchens lets his targets do the (self-)ridiculing for him. When George Bush Sr. quotes Tom Paine (“These are the times that try men’s souls”) in a speech announcing the 1991 invasion of Iraq, Hitchens has only to point out that Bush was quoting from Paine’s pamphlet The American Crisis, which goes on to speak with scorn of “summer soldiers and sunshine patriots,” for the president to look a fool.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Alice Gibbs in Newsweek:

From causing a stir with unexpected office wear to dominating social media, members of Generation Z aren’t shy about making their opinions known. As of 2023, those born between 1997 and 2012 make up the largest generation in the world, but how easy are they to spot? If you’re wondering how you can identify someone from this generation without asking for a date of birth, Newsweek asked artificial intelligence text chatbot ChatGPT to provide 10 ways to spot someone from Gen Z. Here is the question: “Tell me 10 ways I might spot someone from Generation Z, born between 1997 and 2012. In your response, please consider factors like fashion, entertainment, language use, social indicators and media consumption.”

1. 1. Fashion Choices
      Gen Z has brought back the Y2K aesthetic in a big way, favoring oversized clothing, wide-leg jeans and chunky sneakers. The look often includes crop tops, bucket hats and tiny sunglasses. Gen Zers are also likely to opt for sustainable fashion and are more likely to shop secondhand or support eco-friendly brands.
   2. Language and Slang
      If you hear phrases like “no cap” (meaning no lie), “slay” (doing something exceptionally well) or “bet” (agreement), you’re likely speaking to someone from Gen Z. Gen Zers have developed a language all their own, often popularized on TikTok, and frequently use internet slang like “FR” (for real) and “SMH” (shaking my head).

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Liron Mor over at the Critical Inquiry blog:

This is the time of inqisām. A time of severance, of breaking apart, of the utter destruction of Gaza, the dissolution of its inhabitants, its communities, and its infrastructures, of lives and everything that sustains them, of the very habitability of the land.

But this word, inqisām, names much more. Meaning “severance” or “being partitioned” in Arabic, it helps designate and illuminate several political, conceptual, social, and psychological aspects of Israel’s war on Gaza and on Palestinians more broadly, both before and after October 2023. It is, first and foremost, the proper name for an Israeli mode of segregation, which separates not only colonizers from colonized but also, and more importantly, the colonized from one another. It indexes technologies of distancing that produce Israeli blindness and apathy to Palestinian subjectivity. It accurately manifests the current stage of what is known as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a stage defined by the temporally cyclical and spatially binary logic of blood feuds and revenge, with its tendency to decontextualize and its recurrent moral rebooting of history. Finally, it helps demonstrate that what is going on at present does not constitute a break with the previous Israeli paradigm of “conflict management,” which many declared to have been shattered. Instead, this severance is simply its continuation by other means. Since “conflict management” has long involved periodic large-scale operations of mass killing and infrastructural devastation—a violence whose seasonal nature is captured by the term Israeli politicians have given it, mowing the lawn—what sets apart the current violence in Gaza is primarily its unprecedented scale.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Stephen Holmes in The Ideas Letter:

Today’s disheartening resurgence of authoritarianism, xenophobia, race-baiting, brazen sexism and religious zealotry, not to mention homicidal rampages in the name of ethnic identity, makes rallying to the defense of a beleaguered liberalism into an intellectual and moral imperative. Even Alexander Lefebvre, a delightfully entertaining Professor of Politics and Philosophy at the University of Sidney, acknowledges in an aside that “liberal institutions and values are threatened worldwide.”  But his stylishly chatty and evangelizing new book aims to defend liberalism against a threat less grimly consequential than those making newspaper headlines.  The danger to which he draws our attention is more bookish and professorial than blood-dimmed and existential.  In making his eloquent case for liberalism, he says little about the malignant movements of the far right thriving on political confusion and division in the United States and the European Union.  Instead, he concentrates his hostile fire on a fashionable but unjustifiably cramped interpretation of the teachings of his philosophical hero, John Rawls.

The mission he sets himself is to present Rawls’ thought in a new light and thereby overturn “the reigning orthodoxy of how to do political philosophy within the Anglophone academy.”  The orthodoxy with which he takes issue is the idea that liberalism is an exclusively and narrowly political doctrine focused on organizing political institutions to guarantee the equal rights and liberties of all members of the community.  He invites us to look beyond its strictly political aspirations and appreciate liberalism’s promise of personal fulfillment through fair and generous treatment of friends, family, acquaintances, colleagues and the strangers we occasionally meet.

The charm of Lefebvre’s approach to Rawls lies in how he transforms the dense and conceptually innovative analysis of A Theory of Justice into a frolicking, page-turning “work of self-help for liberals.”

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Kristen French in Nautilus:

Throw on the Power Lights! Rev her up to 8,500! We’re going through!” shouts the commander to his crew, as he navigates through the worst storm in his 20 years of flying. A harrowing scene unfolds but then Walter Mitty is brought back to reality by the sound of his wife’s voice, the daydream fading into the byways of his mind. Not long after that, he’s struck with a new fantasy, and then another. Over the course of an afternoon, while running mundane errands, Mitty proceeds to have a series of increasingly dazzling daydreams in which he performs acts of great heroism, vivid narratives that bubble like a geyser into his mind.

This is the plot of “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty,” a short story written by James Thurber in 1939 that has been retold over and over in popular film and theater adaptations. The story has captured so many imaginations because getting lost in daydreams is a very human thing to do. We all occasionally script narratives in our minds in which our deepest desires come true, as a refuge from some of the more disappointing facts of life.

For some, though, the delight of daydreaming can turn into a curse: The fantasies become such a successful form of escape that they take over the mind, becoming compulsive and preventing the dreamer from paying attention to important facets of reality—work, school, other people.

Psychologists have been fascinated with daydreams since at least the time of Freud, who believed they bore the hallmarks of unconscious yearnings and conflicts. But Israeli research and clinical psychologist Eli Somer was the first to describe excessive daydreaming as a distinct psychiatric problem.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Daniel Waldenström in Aeon:

Recent decades have seen private wealth multiply around the Western world, making us richer than ever before. A hasty glance at the soaring number of billionaires – some doubling as international celebrities – prompts the question: are we also living in a time of unparalleled wealth inequality? Influential scholars have argued that indeed we are. Their narrative of a new gilded age paints wealth as an instrument of power and inequality. The 19th-century era with low taxes and minimal market regulation allowed for unchecked capital accumulation and then, in the 20th century, the two world wars and progressive taxation policies diminished the fortunes of the wealthy and reduced wealth gaps. Since 1980, the orthodoxy continues, a wave of market-friendly policies reversed this equalising historical trend, boosting capital values and sending wealth inequality back towards historic highs.

The trouble with the powerful new orthodoxy that tries to explain the history of wealth is that it doesn’t fully square with reality. New research studies, and more careful inspection of the previous historical data, paint a picture where the main catalysts for wealth equalisation are neither the devastations of war nor progressive tax regimes. War and progressive taxation have had influence, but they cannot count as the main forces that led to wealth inequality falling dramatically over the past century. The real influences are instead the expansion from below of asset ownership among everyday citizens, constituted by the rise of homeownership and pension savings. This popular ownership movement was made possible by institutional changes, most important democracy, and followed suit by educational reforms and labour laws, and the technological advancements lifting everyone’s income.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Alexandra Jacobs at the NYT:

Many writers’ graves are tourist attractions. Not Christopher Isherwood’s. Indeed, he doesn’t have one. Best remembered for his “Berlin Stories,” which became “I Am a Camera” which became “Cabaret” — and latterly for “A Single Man,” which the designer Tom Ford made into a movie — Isherwood, who died in 1986 at 81, signed away his corpse to science.

Now the director of his foundation, Katherine Bucknell, a novelist herself, has with great care erected a massive literary cenotaph entitled, with an apt echo of this summer’s most successful movie, “Christopher Isherwood Inside Out.” It joins Peter Parker’s equally gargantuan “Isherwood: A Life Revealed,” from 20 years ago: twin lions guarding fiercely the library of Isherwood’s own prodigious autofiction, letters and journals. The biographers’ little-lion friend, their main Christopher whisperer, is Don Bachardy: the artist and Isherwood’s longtime partner, 30 years his junior and fondly known as Kitty. A landed-gentry Englishman who’d uprooted improbably to Los Angeles, Isherwood was Dobbin, after a toy horse he’d been given by his nanny as a child. They called themselves the Animals, their private domestic idyll the “basket.”

more here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Nick Duerden at The Guardian:

In 2004, the British journalist Chris Heath spent more than a year shadowing Robbie Williams’s every movement for his book on the singer, Feel. If this was above and beyond the usual requirements of a biographer, you could see why he thought it might pay off. We tend to be fascinated by success, and the cost that fame can exact upon the individual. And so who better to take such an approach with than both the biggest pop star of his generation and the most self-critical?

The music writer Will Hodgkinson clearly took note, because now he has done something similar, albeit with a singer the vast majority of us will never have heard of: Lawrence. But then navigation of failure is far more interesting than the navigation of success. It’s easier to relate to, too. Like Lulu (and Sting, and Jedward), Lawrence goes by no surname. Back in the 1980s, he had a glimmer of cult appeal with his indie band Felt, and then again a decade later with Denim.

more here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

JD Biersdorfer in The New York Times:

Welcome to Lit Trivia, the Book Review’s regular quiz about books, authors and literary culture. This week’s installment challenges you to identify classic novels from the descriptions in their original — and, well, not wholly positive — reviews in the pages of The New York Times. In the five multiple-choice questions below, tap or click on the answer you think is correct. After the last question, you’ll find links to the books if you’d like to do some further reading.

1 of 5

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

On Sight

I am so thankful I have seen
The Desert
And the creatures in The Desert
And the desert Itself.

The Desert has its own moon
Which I have seen
With my own eye

There is no flag on it.

Trees of the desert have arms
All of which are always up
That is because the moon is up
The sun is up
Also the sky
The stars
Clouds
None with flags.

If there were flags, I doubt
The trees would point.
Would you?

by Alice Walker
from Her Blue Body Everything We Know
Harvest Books, 1991

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Jake Werner over at the Quincy Institute:

In the three decades leading to the global financial crisis of 2008, neoliberal globalization stitched the world together through a common set of market-dominated institutions and ideologies. Even as it built up dangerous social inequalities and dissipated the collective capacities necessary to act on the climate crisis, neoliberal globalization also fostered domestic consensus in the major countries and great power peace among them through the promise of shared growth.

Since 2008, that promise has been exposed as an illusion. The domestic and international accords that neoliberal globalization underwrote have disintegrated. The inequalities that it exacerbated have been exploited to mobilize popular support for interracial, interethnic, intercommunal, and international conflict over what now appears to be only zero-sum possibilities for growth and opportunity. The need to unify “us” against “them” creates broad support for strongman politics.

The United States and the world face a fateful choice. We can embrace one form or another of nativism, nationalism, and militarism, all of which aggravate the zero-sum structure of competition and thus make escalating cycles of violence and authoritarianism increasingly likely. Or we can pursue the progressive alternative: solidarity among those now pitted against one another to win structural reforms that would succeed economically, politically, and ecologically because they achieve inclusive prosperity.

On most of the core issues that will decide this epochal choice — migration, labor, climate — progressives in the U.S. stand clearly on the side of an inclusive, positive-sum solution to the crisis. But on the single most important international relationship, that between the United States and China, confusion and ambivalence reign among progressives.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Séamus Malekafzali in The Baffler:

In the nine months since the war against Gaza began—nine months of terror, destruction, and displacement with no end in sight—American officials have publicly sought, in tandem with ensuring no Israeli leader is held responsible for their wanton disregard of international law, to prevent the dread specter of a broader “regional war.” That term is on the lips of every foreign policy apparatchik in the Pentagon and at the White House, who are rightly fearful of a quagmire more vexing than Iraq, more intractable than Afghanistan. Officials have thus been working around the clock to pressure Hamas to accept the purportedly generous, if not downright magnanimous, ceasefire deal currently on the table in hopes of bringing an end to the conflict before tensions spiral out of control.

But these diplomatic machinations ignore a simple, obvious fact clear to anyone in the Middle East itself: the “regional war” is already here. For months now, Yemen’s Houthis have, in solidarity with Hamas, attempted to blockade the Red Sea, launching attacks against dozens of commercial ships. An international coalition meant to open the waters has only cleared the way for the Houthis to expand the scope of their operations, building hypersonic missiles and targeting ships not just in the Red Sea but in the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea as well. Last week, in a marked escalation, they launched a drone that struck an apartment building in Tel Aviv, near the American embassy; in response, Israel struck Hodeidah, a Yemeni port under the administration of the Houthi-led government.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Artur Banaszewski and Jacob Saliba over at the Journal of the History of Ideas blog:

In 1987, just a few years before the end of the Cold War, Judith Shklar invited the eminent Polish philosopher Leszek Kołakowski to deliver a lecture at Harvard University. “Do not feel that you are under any pressure to talk about Marxism or any similarly restricted topic”—Shklar assured. By the 1980s, Kołakowski was regarded as a scholarly authority on Marxism. To the surprise of many, he decided to present “Politics and the Devil.” Already in the lecture hall, the audience was left rather confused: the “devil?” in “history?” For most of the lecture, Kołakowski engaged with theological discourses of God and Hell as well as offered interpretations of St. Basil, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and more. Present, that day, at the lecture was an up-and-coming Tony Judt who also struggled to follow the argument. It was not until Timothy Garton Ash leaned over and whispered to him that he realized the point to the lecture: “He really is talking about the Devil.”

Tony Judt recounts this anecdote in Kołakowski’s obituary published in the New York Review of Books in 2009, one year before his own passing. By suggesting that Kołakowski was “the last Central European intellectual,” he was not merely deploring the loss of an eyewitness to Europe’s turbulent twentieth-century history. Judt expressed his esteem for the Polish philosopher and his work on more than one occasion. In his essays, Judt placed Kołakowski alongside key intellectual figures of the twentieth century: Hannah Arendt, Arthur Koestler, and Albert Camus, among others. In Thinking Twentieth Century, his final conversation with Timothy Snyder, Judt remarked that his most influential book, Past Imperfect, was very much written from a “Central European perspective” (212). In Judt’s own words, he considered Kołakowski “an object of unstinting admiration and respect” (198). When writing history, biographies can be as influential as events and ideas—and such was the case with Judt’s reverence for Kołakowski.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

JW Mason in Phenomenal World:

The relationship between money world and the concrete social and material world is a long-standing, though not always explicit, question in the history of economic thought. Do the money payments and prices we see all around us have their own independent existence, distinct from the objects they are attached to? Can things that happen in money world affect the real world?

One central strand in that history is the idea that the answer to these questions is, or ought to be, negative. Money is, or ought to be, neutral—a passive record and measuring stick of real social facts that exist independently of it. The use of the word real in economics as the opposite of both nominal and monetary, as well as in its everyday ontological sense, is not just a bit of confusing terminology; it reflects a deeply-held intellectual commitment.

As early as 1752, we can find David Hume writing that:

Money is nothing but the representation of labour and commodities … Where coin is in greater plenty; as a greater quantity of it is required to represent the same quantity of goods; it can have no effect, either good or bad.

At the turn of the twenty-first century, we hear the same thing from Federal Open Market Committee member Lawrence Meyer: “Monetary policy cannot influence real variables—such as output and employment.” Money, he says, only affects “inflation in the long run. This immediately makes price stability … the direct, unequivocal, and singular long-term objective of monetary policy.”

These accounts share the perspective that money quantities and money payments are just shorthand for the characteristics and use of concrete material objects. They are neutral—mere descriptions that can’t change the underlying things. If money is neutral, changes in the supply or availability of money will only affect the price level, leaving relative prices and production unchanged.

There is, of course, also a long history of arguments on the other side—

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Professor Jonardon Ganeri giving the 2024 John Locke Lectures at Oxford University:

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.