Re: GG: Gould and the Western Society

[Robert Clements <clemensr@mailhost.world.net>]

At 14:00 25/9/1996 +0200, Joakim Thelander wrote:
>
>Gould has often been portrayed as an excentric, sometimes even as a
>lunatic. In my paper I want to show that this was not the case. Quite
>contrary I believe that Gould was very much a product of his time, and of
>the culture and social relations where he was raised and lived in. Consider
>some of the Gouldian "trademarks": his fascination and appreciation of
>technology; his moral fixation (he repeatedly referred to himself as "the
>last Puritan"; the discrepancy between word and action (he called himself a
>socialist but played the market); his body fixation and neurotic behavior
>(the hypochondriac); his isolation and preference for communicating by
>using the phone and not face to face (he would have loved mobile phones and
>e-mail); his drug abuse; his fear of strong emotions and preference for
>rationality. And so on.
>
>These are some examples which I think shows Gould to be very much a part of
>a western, capitalistic culture. There may be things about Gould that are a
>bit harder to fit into my scheme. But viewing him this way should hopefully
>add to an understanding of his life and work. As the sociologist Philip
>Abrams put it: "Individual lives are indeed unique but their uniqueness, I
>suggest, is not a matter of some elusively private factors but of the
>diversity of movement available to historically located individuals within
>historically located social worlds."

That he was _a part of a western, capitalistic culture_ (i would actually
use the expression a _response_ to; but that is only a change in focus
rather than of fact) doesn't necessarily mean he needn't have been an _
eccentric, sometimes even (as) a lunatic_. For the individuals, the thing
about obsessions is _not_ the object of those obsessions _per se_; but the
degree to which they are taken... _purity_ (for want of a better expression)
of action is _clearly_ outside the norms of human social behavior. So was GG.

(I _wouldn't'ave considered him a lunatic, though... just eccentric. Percy
Grainger was a lunatic)

You might, however, find some curious insights into the _cult_ of GG from
your premise. One of the reasons the _icon_ of GG _has_ developed as fast as
it has is the degree to which _his_ life can be seen to symbolise the
aspirations/fears of modern audiences. That, of course, _is_ dependent on
_what_ he was obsessed with....

All the best,


Robert Clements
clemensr@mailhost.world.net