Hunting the snark

I just can’t help but find Camille Paglia interesting. Perhaps it’s just because she seems to agree with me on many things. I mean, who doesn’t like an attractive face in the mirror! But many times with her I find myself learning from her as well, as if she’s thought about some of things even more deeply than I have. She’s certainly able to communicate her ideas effectively.

I recently read an interview with her in Salon, in which she takes on snark:

The real problem is a lack of knowledge of religion as well as a lack of respect for religion. I find it completely hypocritical for people in academe or the media to demand understanding of Muslim beliefs and yet be so derisive and dismissive of the devout Christian beliefs of Southern conservatives.

But yes, the sneering is ridiculous! Exactly what are these people offering in place of religion? In my system, I offer art–and the whole history of spiritual commentary on the universe. There’s a tremendous body of nondenominational insight into human life that used to be called cosmic consciousness. It has to be remembered that my generation in college during the 1960s was suffused with Buddhism, which came from the 1950s beatniks. Hinduism was in the air from every direction–you had the Beatles and the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Ravi Shankar at Monterey, and there were sitars everywhere in rock music. So I really thought we were entering this great period of religious syncretism, where the religions of the world were going to merge. But all of a sudden, it disappeared! The Asian religions vanished–and I really feel sorry for young people growing up in this very shallow environment where they’re peppered with images from mass media at a particularly debased stage.

There are no truly major stars left, and I don’t think there’s much profound work being done in pop culture right now. Young people have nothing to enlighten them, which is why they’re clinging so much to politicized concepts, which give them a sense of meaning and direction.

But this sneering thing! I despise snark. Snark is a disease that started with David Letterman and jumped to Jon Stewart and has proliferated since. I think it’s horrible for young people! And this kind of snark atheism–let’s just invent that term right now–is stupid, and people who act like that are stupid…

She seems to bring a refreshing intellectual honesty to the table, which I appreciate, even when she’s skewering me, too:

Now let me give you a recent example of the persisting insularity of liberal thought in the media. When the first secret Planned Parenthood video was released in mid-July, anyone who looks only at liberal media was kept totally in the dark about it, even after the second video was released. But the videos were being run nonstop all over conservative talk shows on radio and television. It was a huge and disturbing story, but there was total silence in the liberal media. That kind of censorship was shockingly unprofessional. The liberal major media were trying to bury the story by ignoring it. Now I am a former member of Planned Parenthood and a strong supporter of unconstrained reproductive rights. But I was horrified and disgusted by those videos and immediately felt there were serious breaches of medical ethics in the conduct of Planned Parenthood officials. But here’s my point: it is everyone’s obligation, whatever your political views, to look at both liberal and conservative news sources every single day. You need a full range of viewpoints to understand what is going on in the world.

Yeah, I do. It’s just hard to get without risk. It’s painful to spend too much on the side you disagree with because of how polarized things have become. You can’t just get the alternative viewpoint these days, you have to subject yourself to incessent character assassination to get it. Perhaps we do need our whole grains, but I’d rather not have to go through a weed-wacker to get them. Paglia seems to be willing to go through it, but then perhaps it’s because she doesn’t feel too connected to either side? Or perhaps it’s just the cost of intellectual honesty, and she’s willing to pay it? If so, good for her.

Anyway, read the whole thing. Whether you like her or not, agree with her or not, she’s got an interesting take on the world, and an interesting way of expressing it. Granted, she also says many things I just have to shrug off, and she does like to pin on her “persecuted intellectual” badge a little too often. And she does have a rather high opinion of herself (that seems to go with the territory on columnists, writers, and intellectuals.) But her knowledge if broad, her ideas thoughtful. I think she would be one of the most interesting dinner guests you could hope to find.

Update: That was part two of a three-day series. Here’s Part One. And Part Three.