October 11, 2010
Tricksters and Hucksters
Andrew’s Žižek post had me thinking all weekend about Tricksters and Hucksters. I would like to compile a list, with, perhaps, Not Sure as a third category. Here’s a quick stab, and if you disagree, and think one or the other should be in a different category, I think the overlap will be good.
Trickster
Bugs Bunny
Marcel Duchamp
Andy Kaufman
Huckster
Karl Rove
Roger Ailes
Not Sure
Andy Warhol
Jeff Koons
comments
Leave a Reply
I would say that Koons is both and Warhol, neither. The rest I agree with completely.
what do you do with Chauncey Gardiner?
He’s neither, also. I think intent needs to be present for either term to have meaning.
This is really good, by the way. In a minute I’ll set my mind to it and come up with a long list.
I thought of Chauncey as a naive trickster, but I think we are thinking about it the same way.
Yes.
Damn. My brain’s not working right. Hold on, I need to rub it or something.
And depending on what you read I’d put Buddha in the trickster category, which maybe just means I’d put some Buddhists in the trickster category.
Okay, categorize these, please:
Tom Waits
Rush Limbaugh
Bill Murray
Stephen Colbert
David Lynch
Also, would it be possible to have just a general asshole category?
Hmmm. I don’t know what to do with these. Bill Murray at his best is a trickster, which is not to say I don’t love everything else about him. Rush Limbaugh is evil. Tom Waits is smart. Stephen Colbert is a conservative pundit. David Lynch. Hmmm.
The one that interests me most is Colbert. Because I think someone can be wonderful and also be a trickster or even a huckster. Colbert could be seen as promoting a liberal point of view through tricksterism.
Sorry if I messed up your game.
Not at all, that was the point. Also, I think there is hucksterism by way of mental health problems, a la Glenn Beck, and hucksterism by way of stupidity, as well as, as we already mentioned, the naive trickster category.
What do you think of Lynch in terms of this? I definitely see tricksterism in there, but there’s more to it isn’t there?
And if the conservatives who think Colbert is actually a conservative pundit knew would they think he was a huckster?
I think there might be more to it with Lynch, but I’m not sure. I don’t think he’s a huckster, except when someone makes a shitload of money on tricksterism, the huckster element can’t be too far removed.
I need to say up front that I like and even admire all of the people I mention above (with the obvious exception of Limbaugh–who has been on my mind because he made a self-deprecating appearance on Family Guy that has thrown me off kilter, the son of a bitch).
Okay, here’s a good one: Joseph Smith.
David Lynch is sincere in his work, which is what makes it okay. If it was a trick it would be unbearable.
I guess I should look up conventional definitions of tricksterism and hucksterism, because I really don’t see tricksterism as being inherently bad. I see it as embodying playfulness and/or subversion in one’s work. The best tricksters are glad when people are smart enough to get the joke.
that’s my take as well, and the intention of the post.
Good.
Did you see the Family Guy episode with Limbaugh? Very upsetting.
Well, god damn, you provided definitions up front. Honestly, there is something wrong with my mind today. Must’ve had another stroke.
Probably you just got all stressed-out reading the morning’s posts about . . . you know.
God damn it
I think Andrew posted a clip about Limbaugh on Family Guy but I didn’t watch that or the episode. I bet he’s being self-deprecating on his radio show now.
So, according to the last thread, Derrida would be a trickster while Zizek a huckster, correct?
Or would we put Derrida in the “not sure” category? This is the man who called himself “one who rightly passes for an atheist” and “took irony very seriously“
If the article you linked to is indicative, Zizek is a huckster. On the other hand, if his only intention is to make bullshit arguments with the hope that someone will catch on and be amused….
Also, hucksters can be transformed into tricksters if the person paying attention is smart enough.
I would classify both Derrida and Foucault as tricksters. Zizek doesn’t really warrant classification to my mind.
I wholeheartedly disagree with you about Zizek, but there is no point rehashing the earlier thread.
Andrew, does it bother you that no one here who read the Zizek article, all of whom have experience with, and appreciation for, post-structuralist thought, regardless of political affiliation, saw Zizek as nothing but a fraud?
A little bit, but I believe a lot of things that around here are considered foolish, fraudulent, and/or contempt-worthy. I’ve reconciled myself to this position a long time ago and only unbite my tongue when I think it’s particularly important.
In other words, I deeply respect you folks but you are not my only litmus test for what is right/good/praise-worthy, etc.
Do you think defending Zizek is more important than defending Christianity?
“In other words, I deeply respect you folks but you are not my only litmus test for what is right/good/praise-worthy, etc.”
Understood.
Let me ask a further question.
Do you perceive Zizek as having made a factual case against Progressive thought or do you perceive him as noteworthy for what he can teach us about the philosophy of what is knowable — essentially a trickster in the mode of Derrida and Foucault?
Well, no, Cindy, but I don’t know if I have a clear sense of what would make one more important over the other.
I thought a lot about this weekend and I think my push back on the Zizek thread is because his intellectual posture and his method (but not his principles) is very much how I approach thinking about things, so defending Zizek is in some way defending myself. Plus I am most deeply suspicious of myself when I have a strong emotional response to an idea/person/ideology. It’s hardly my job, but when I see other people who have that reaction I often want to gently nudge them to consider the thing more closely. Zizek is just such an example.
Andrew, I think I would need to know whether you thought Zizek made a factual argument against Progressive thought in order to know how to respond to your idea of the gentle nudge.
Sorry, Deron, I wrote that comment while you were writing yours.
Although I do think Zizek’s claim about Progressive Liberalism as an ideology has deep merit and should be taken seriously. I can’t stand assholes like Glenn Beck accusing the Left of being elitist and unproletariat (or whatever language you prefer), but I do smell what his ilk are stepping in, if only because I sense it in myself insofar as my ideas find their home in Progressive Liberalism.
It’s also worth noting that my “want to gently nudge” does not mean such a feeling is legitimate or just. It could be a dick move, not that that is my intention.
Thank you, Andrew. I asked because you said you only unbite your tongue when you think it is particularly important. I’ve noticed that you push back most often on matters of rhetoric rather than ideology–hence the question. Your second answer illuminates your thinking in a way that I understand.
Actually, it doesn’t, but I appreciate the conversation.
My push back to your post came from a concern I had both with it and the D’Souza post in which assertions were made without factual or logical argument. It concerned me that you perceived either as serious critique — as opposed to exercises in the philosophy of what is knowable, which I don’t perceive either to be — because if you were presenting them as documents to be considered based on the merits of their arguments, both called into question, to my mind at least, your seriousness concerning how arguments are made and what constitutes evidence.
oh, sorry! my ‘actually it doesn’t’ comment lacks context now and was directed at neither Cindy nor Andrew’s revised comment. I hope that makes sense.
I am shocked you haven’t called that into question a long time ago considering my affinity to Christianity.
Not that I want to open that can of worms…
Incidentally, this has been a really great discussion. It helped me better formulate what I perceive as intellectually important.
further clarification, though, Andrew. the second part of my ‘actually it doesn’t’ comment still pertains and I would be interested in your response.
pertains to what exactly?
my curiosity about what you thought Zizek was up to. did he make factual arguments? or did he employ the tricks of post-structuralism as an object lesson in the philosophy of what is knowable?
In this case I agree with Zizek, yes.
D’Souza, since you mentioned him as well, I would say no.
We’re going too fast here–I’m not sure to whom some of the comments are being directed.
I agree that this is a very good thread, for all of us.
Andrew, can you describe the other group(s)you look to for a litmus test? I realize you don’t owe any of us an explanation, but since you mentioned it, I think that knowing who we look to for challenge and confirmation says everything about our intellectual growth.
I assumed you agreed with Zizek, Andrew. What I wanted to know, though, was whether you thought Zizek made a fact-based argument or expressed an opinion.
Oh, I see what you’re asking. It’s an opinion, of course. Factual arguments are nearly impossible to make and those that are possible are seldom useful.
Thanks, Andrew.
If you are interested, here’s how I would frame my reaction to Zizek’s article:
I can make fact-based assertions about self-identified American conservatives such as:
1. Self-identified American conservatives have a problem identifying satire.
&
2. Self-identified American conservatives use more electricity when presented with the electricity use of their neighbors.
Both of these observations are verifiable, and I have used them, rightly or wrongly, to shape my opinion of the conservative movement.
Zizek says: Progressives are veiled racists, and his evidence is a quote he made up, conservative ideas presented as progressivism, and non-alcoholic beer.
I don’t have a problem with the idea that progressives are veiled racists, if that is the case, but in order to take that seriously on even a rhetorical level, I would need examples.
See my position?
Gotcha. I’ve been friends with too many mathematicians to not be deeply suspicious of most statistical studies as a way to knowledge. That said, I’ve played a lot of poker and the decisions based on statistics do tend to yield fruit. I’m not sure how to reconcile those perspectives.
For me, Zizek was able to pull together a number of post-structuralist concepts which speak to me and describe a perspective that fits well with my experiences in Princeton, Saint Louis, and various areas I lived in California. And, to me, that’s compelling.
I’m late to this and have held back, but can’t stay out now:
Introductory Rhetoric textbooks point out the weakness of formal reasoning when one hopes to assert its authority in the context of the informal reasoning that results in the actual decisions made all around. Such books are also quick to point out that “facts” are never free of theory, that they never “speak for themselves,” and that they depend upon a context for their significance. These notions are instantly seen as attractive by freshmen, since their impulse is most often to seize upon the chance to present the appearance of logical rigor without actually struggling to achieve it, while also feeling the freedom of being unconstrained by facts (as if all facts are suddenly equally suspect). All is suspect, and thus all authority suseptible to instant debunking. And all of this is indulged in without real thought about how this much-challenged world has come to be what it is. Who cares? A few beers and the good conversations among those who are equally doubtful and certain about whatever comes up–is all it takes. But if one actually cares about rhetoric, it’s a good idea to cultivate the ablility to recognize the difference between an actual argument and the bobbing and weaving of those who never really want to submit themselves to the possibility of change.
I know a hawk from a handsaw, if that’s what you’re suggesting.
Ah, an argument. The ability to suggest is always useful–when there is a need served by it. Sometimes directness is not recognized as better than the gentle nudge which arrives as an anonymous goose.
I like that last sentence, Daryl.
[...] Merlin Mann thinks, “… he’s probably a genius.” But, Merlin’s a huckster, so you should check it out for yourself. At least check out the trailer (A trailer for a [...]