The Penny Hasn’t Dropped
Over the past few months I have become, and remain, deeply embedded in the student movement in the UK and Europe. Many of the young people who feature in the piece – on whose activities I’ve been keeping meticulous notes, and who are of a similar age and political attitude to myself – have since become as close to personal friends as observational subjects ever can be… This has stretched my objectivity to its limits. I have had to work and rework the article to make sure I was constructing an accurate portrait.
So says Laurie Penny, reporting from “the front line of student activism.”
Readers familiar with Ms Penny’s brand of activist journalism – in the pages of the Guardian, New Statesman and the communist Morning Star – may find her use of the words “accurate” and “objectivity” inadvertently amusing. This is the same Laurie Penny who tells us that, while “not everyone who displays an England flag is a fascist,” football is nonetheless “commodified nationalism” played by “misogynist jocks” indulging in “organised sadism.” The World Cup is apparently not about football at all, but “only and always about men.” It’s a “month of corporate-sponsored quasi-xenophobia,” one that “violently excludes more than half the people.”
Like so much in Laurie’s world, it just does, okay?
Writing for Red Pepper, Ms Penny tells us that, “capitalism is built on the docile bodies of women” and that women are reduced to “reproductive labourers whose physical and sexual autonomy is relentlessly policed.” The same article rails against “US state governments [that] compete to think up ever more cruel and unusual ways to punish women for sexual self-determination.”
It is, I think, fair to say that Laurie Penny enjoys railing against things, generally things that aren’t entirely obvious but which are framed as both terrible and somehow self-evident. A typical Laurie Penny article is long on assertion, short on facts and coherent argument, and invariably written in the highest possible gear. She rails against the Conservative Party (“hordes of drooling poshos”) and its “brutally intolerant moral agenda.” The details of this brutally intolerant agenda are, alas, somewhat vague. She rails against “the bruised superstructure of patriarchal capitalist control,” the particulars of which also remain unspecified and mysterious. She rails against a “heteronormative patriarchy that oppresses all of us.” (What, you didn’t know?) She rails against “brutal repression” by an impending police state that no-one else can see, and she rails against protestors “not being heard,” as if being heard must entail being agreed with and obeyed. Ours, she says, is a world “on fire.”
When not railing against a heteronormative police state that’s brutal, intolerant and also on fire, Ms Penny likes to share with us an extensive menu of personal miseries, along with other aspects of her fascinating self:
It’s getting harder to stay in touch with why I write and campaign in the first place. It’s getting harder to stay angry… That terrifies me more than anything… The centre-right have taken back my country… Across the pond, the American right are winning the fight for ideological control of the world’s only superpower.
That’s what clinical depression does, you see. It takes away your anger, piece by piece… When terrible things happen – like a coalition government closing down your country piece by piece, slamming the door on the young, the poor, the sick, immigrants, women – you cease to really believe that anything can be done.
And when not feeling numbed by the horror of it all, our thrusting leftwing columnist envisions a “radical youth movement” – “a movement not just for reform but for revolution” – one that “requires direct action” and “upsetting… our parents, our future employers… and quite possibly the police.” This revolutionary uprising is needed because, “the young people of Britain are suffering brutal, insulting socio-economic oppression.” (And yes, all of this is happening “in a world that’s increasingly on fire.”)
For Ms Penny, politics must always be declared in the most inflated and operatic terms. Proportion is a hindrance and realism is irrelevant, as are minor details like facts and causality. Among which, the relationship between a higher education bubble and egalitarian beliefs remarkably like her own. Thus, Laurie regards belated cuts in public spending – cuts that merely reduce the overall increase in spending – as “the greatest assault on social democracy in living memory.” While 13 years of overspending and unsustainable state expansion under New Labour, a consequent structural debt measured in trillions and the buying of votes with other people’s money doesn’t count as an “assault” on anything. What matters – pretty much all that matters – is the drama, the role-play, the rhetorical rush. And in Laurie’s world everything is political, no matter how small, self-indulgent or contrived.
Needless to say, the news is always grim:
The planet is boiling; the rivers are drying up; the human race may very well be about to tear itself apart.
One of Ms Penny’s readers asks,
Why do you feel it important to be angry all the time?
While we wait for an answer, perhaps we should try reversing that sequence of ideas. After all, pretending to be angry makes some people feel important all the time.
Over at Harry’s Place, Michael Ezra recently asked: “Who is there to speak up on behalf of the students?” He suggested Laurie Penny had already become “the voice for a generation”:
Penny is… being cheered on by the youth for whom she speaks… She expresses the views of many in coherent and well thought out articles… Penny is surely one of the most vibrant young journalists that we have.
Now there’s a thing to ponder. Let it roll around your mind. The preferred mouthpiece for Britain’s youth could be someone who can practically smell “the end of everything,” and who equates a modest cap on housing benefit – £20,000 a year – with the Nazis’ Final Solution.
Objectivity, see? Just stretched to its limits.
Update: Laurie rails against the menace of pubic glitter.
Update 2: Laurie tells us that throwing heavy metal objects through someone else’s windows isn’t really violence.
Update 3: Laurie hyperventilates, pities self, loses mind.
Update 4: The modern campus is akin to a “military dictatorship.” Psychodrama ensues.
Update 5: Laurie is marginalised, “marked as other,” and also a cyborg. Says the New York Times.
She asserts something breathlessly, and then quickly asserts something else on top of it, then something else, and soon you have a pile of assertion that’s fatuous and incoherent
That Oxbridge education really paid off. Wadham College must be proud.
Min,
“Wadham College must be proud.”
Well, you’d think any staff with intellectual standards might wince a little. But I suppose it depends on whether Wadham employs academics as daring and edgy as anthropology lecturer David Graeber, whose favoured topics include “anarchism” and “magic as a tool of politics,” and who announced that he was “very proud” of the rioting students, adding: “They are going to represent us as thugs but really they are the thugs and we are representing civilisation.” (For Mr Graeber’s definition of civilisation, see the video linked below.) Or Luke Cooper, an assistant tutor and member of the “socialist youth movement” Revolution, who feels government buildings are “legitimate targets for protest and occupation.”
http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2010/11/unveiled-new-definitions-of-violence-and-civilisation.html
I’m sure Mr Cooper and his peers wouldn’t mind if, say, a mob of taxpayers repaid the favour and invaded their classrooms or trashed the faculty lounge.
Jesus Christ. If you thought this was bad have a look at Penny’s 3rd February post. I’d say it was comedy gold (the first few comments definitely are) except that the levels of egotism involved in this atrocity suggest serious mental health issues.
Just read Penny’s aforementioned 3rd February post, and I have to admit I find it reassuring.I don’t think comparisons with the likes of Bidisha, who seems to me to largely motivated by spite and the desire to provoke, are warranted. Penny’s just an idealistic kid with a cause, and while she may be a bit self-righteous, hypocritical, incoherent or just plain wrong-headed in her columns, that kinda goes with the territory. If you can’t be immature when you’re young, when can you be?
Besides, higher education is the UK is a shambles, and increasing the cost of it won’t improve a system whose main point is increasingly to certify what social class you belong to. Labour’s introduction of tuition fees (also against an explicit manifesto commitment, but oddly breaking that promise didn’t provoke the same kind of anger as the Lib Dems did, and the Lib Dems at least had the excuse of being a minority partner in a coalition and had to compromise some of their policies to get others accepted) and arbitrary increase in student numbers was part of their overall effect of stopping social mobility and productivity stone dead. As well as trapping the poor on benefits so generous they can’t afford to take a job, they directed any excess money the middle classes might have away from potentially being spent in productive areas of the economy into servicing debt on education and house prices.
The Tories are showing signs of wanting to fix the benefit problem – the level they’ve capped benefits at is still higher than you can get on minimum wage, but hopefully they’ll close that gap gradually – but they’re continuing Labour’s higher education policy. The student protest movement might not know what they want or how to get it, but they are reacting to a genuine problem.
Patrick,
“Penny’s just an idealistic kid with a cause, and while she may be a bit self-righteous, hypocritical, incoherent or just plain wrong-headed in her columns, that kinda goes with the territory.”
Sadly, idealism is cheap and one can’t act like a teenager forever. Nor can one base a “revolution” on self-righteous hypocrisy and wrong-headed incoherence. (Well, maybe technically one could, but that doesn’t exactly sound like a blueprint for utopia.) And if a person sets themselves up as an “activist journalist” and professional political commentator – one who wishes to be “objective” and yet, more importantly, “useful to the protest movement” – then it helps to have mastered at least some of the pertinent facts and to have a grasp of economics and rudimentary logic. None of which would seem to be the case. (As the Devil pointed out somewhat saltily, Ms Penny seems to live in “a fantasy world in which government spending is not the extorted product of people’s hard work, but magic fucking money that falls from the sky.”)
If higher education is the UK is “a shambles,” or at least grossly inflated, unmoored from the market and therefore unsustainable, how will this be remedied without addressing basic factors which Ms Penny seems keen to avoid, possibly due to the light it might shed on egalitarian conceits remarkably like her own?
and while she may be a bit self-righteous, hypocritical, incoherent or just plain wrong-headed…
Yeah, if we set aside everything she writes she’s doing really well. ;D
“Sadly, idealism is cheap and one can’t act like a teenager forever.”
True. But my point is, she is as yet unformed and her post on Thursday shows some awareness of her youth and immaturity. She’s not a hardline ideologue, at least not yet. If she grows up to be Polly Toynbee, of course, you have my permission to rub my face in it.
I think it goes deeper than mere youth – she has the voice & mental horizons of a bath toy.
Patrick,
“If you can’t be immature when you’re young, when can you be?”
But she’s not just immature (and self-righteous, hypocritical, incoherent, wrong-headed, etc etc) She always so bloody adamant too. She is an ideologue. She just knows it’s all because of the patriarchy, sexism, bankers and the evil tories.
One whiny blog post about ‘still learning the rules’ doesn’t cut it. There’s never any doubt in her articles -she just knows she’s right. She can’t have it both ways.
‘she has the voice & mental horizons of a bath toy’.
Bravo. My apologies in advance if I use this phrase without attribution.
there’s an air of confabulation. If the activist drama blurs into distortion, implausible anecdotes and Things That May Not Have Actually Happened, that doesn’t seem to trouble her.
Oops. Another one:
“But this isn’t like your recorded, interview-style, on-record words being taken out of context, or mangled a bit. Laurie wasn’t recording our conversation, or taking notes. I thought we were talking as activists, acquaintances, even friends. This isn’t a misquote, because no original quote exists. It’s a fabrication.”
http://zetkin.net/journalism-subjectivity-movement/
(Via Tim Worstall.)
Heh. Imagine my surprise.
Not saying that she’s right with any other point, but does anyone else here agree with her on the notion that the fandom around football is “commodified nationalism”?
There seem to be many people for whom the achievements of their country’s football team have very personal connotations. When Germany won the World Cup in 1990, the newspapers here were full of headlines like “Wir sind Weltmeister!” (“We are World Champion!”). This leads to a sense that when you inhabit a certain country, you’re not only exposed to its culture, which is true, but you’re an integral and essential part of it. This only strengthens the us-and-them-mentality that’s such a big part of nationalistic feelings. Of course this won’t lead to the Fourth Reich here or the equivalent of it anywhere else, as someone like Laurie Penny might believe. But I’m not sure if it’s such a good thing either.