The culture of decadence in the United States, historically considered, begs the question: what, after all, is decadence? As many critics have observed, decadence is hard to define because the concept is so nuanced and polyvalent that the very procedure of definition misses the point. The moment we say “Decadence is,” the game is lost: decadence and denotation appear to be opposed. Indeed, before we can even begin to say what decadence is, we must first say what decadence is.
“Inevitably, this means that there is something secondhand about American decandence, so the traditional, negative meaning of ‘decadence’ as “mannered imitation” has some relevance to the American variant. Still, this “decadent decadence” is not without its appeal, given the cultural alternatives on offer in 1890s America. … Perhaps the final paradox of American decadence is simply this: that only by ending could the culture continue.
Americans are not degenerate; rather, they are exhausted. In Nordau’s Europe, degeneracy is the ruin of civilization; in Beard’s and Weir’s America, civilization is the ruin of the citizenry, or, at least, that portion of the citizenry charged with doing the “brain-work” that keeps up the capitalist economy humming. “
Looking backward now, we can only be nostalgic for that vanished age when depravity and corruption actually meant something, when excess needed careful calculation and perversion required discipline and discretion. Today, of course, America offers no shortage of depravity, corruption, excess, and possibly even perversion, but never decadence: it is too late for that.
As summer has finally arrived to Helsinki I doubt there is better ways to spend days than being unoccupied and leave the city to wander in the woods close by. Henry David Thoreau’s brilliant essay Walking is definitely one to carry with you.
“
I wish to speak a word for nature, for absolute Freedom and Wildness, as contrasted with a freedom and Culture merely civil, — to regard man as an inhabitant, or a part and parcel of Nature, rather than a member of society. I wish to make an extreme statement, if so I may make a emphatic one, for there are enough champions of civilization; the minister, and the school-committee, and every one of you will take care of that.
I have met with but one or two persons in the course of my life who understood the art of Walking, that is, of taking walks, who had a genius, so to speak, for sauntering; which word is beautifully derived “from idle people who roved about the country, in the middle ages, and asked charity, under pretence of going à la sainte terre” — to the holy land, till the children exclaimed, “There goes a sainte-terrer“, a saunterer — a holy-lander. They who never go to the holy land in their walks, as they pretend, are indeed mere idlers and vagabonds, but they who do go there are saunterers in the good sense, such as I mean. Some, however, would derive the word from sans terre, without land or a home, which, therefore, in the good sense, will mean, having no particular home, but equally at home everywhere. For this is the secret of successful sauntering. He who sits still in a house all the time may be the greatest vagrant of all, but the Saunterer, in the good sense, is no more vagrant than the meandering river, which is all the while sedulously seeking the shortest course to the sea. But I prefer the first, which indeed is the most probable derivation. For every walk is a sort of crusade, preached by some Peter the Hermit in us, to go forth and reconquer this holy land from the hands of the Infidels.
“Years have gone by and I’ve finally learned to accept myself for who I am: a beggar for good football. I go about the world, hand outstretched, and in the stadiums I plead: “A pretty move, for the love of God.”
At Camp Nou the pretty move was displaced by tactical genius of Mourinho and eleven ten players that had understanding of others by far superior anything I have witnessed this season. It was a showpiece of defending as a unit. Inter were defensively superb and over the course of the tie, deserved to go through.
Arrigo Sacchi once demonstrated in a training session how five organised players could hold out against ten disorganised ones – taking his Milan back five of Galli, Tassotti, Costacurta, Baresi and Maldini and pitching them against the club’s best ten attacking players. The 15-minute game finished scoreless, despite the attacking talents of the likes of Gullit, van Basten, Rijkaard, Ancelotti and Donadoni. Barcelona – Inter was a match version of that. Barcelona completed 555 passes compared to Inter’s 67, and produced the most dominant display of possession in European competition this year, 86%. And yet, for all that – how many times did they actually get the ball into serious goalscoring positions? Barcelona Football Club also showed just how bad losers they are by turning on the sprinklers just few minutes after the match had ended.
And for one other reason I think many neutrals were happy to see Inter go through.
So my computer said ‘Crash, boom bang’. Or the hard drive to be exact. Little lag on posting, but coming up with something later. More about United – City game. More books (Groundswell, Vaihtoehtoinen USA, Rosvoparonien Paluu, Bukowski, and some others).
So United won but it was not enough. It is all part of the Champions League, away goals, but it did leave bad taste in to mouth – the way it happened. A lot has already been said about the game, but I cannot agree on too much. United were absolutely better of the two teams, but it is not always enough. Usually for United it is though, they have become notorious on how they use their chances and play in the end (even more than the Germans in the past). Not this time.
United started brightly, brilliantly to be honest, going 2-0 up in the first ten minutes. Third goal followed and it all seemed to drop in to United’s hands, but damage had already been done – Rooney was limping and after Carrick’s sloppy defending it was 3-1 when going in to half-time. That was enough to change the flow of the game. Rest followed and United are out.
Just few thoughts:
Like I earlier wrote, United cannot really trust the triumvirate anymore in the big games. This time Sir Ferguson decided to drop all three with the expense of Rafael, Nani, and Gibson. And it worked. United pressed high and aggressively in the beginning and forced Bayern Munich in to lot of easy mistakes and punting the ball up and high. After ten minutes United led 2-0, Gibson and Nani scoring. But how horrible was Badstuber? Valencia really had him in his back pocket.
Rafael’s sending off was the turning point. The young Brazilian got his marching orders after a soft pull to Ribery. After that United changed into 4-4-1 tactic with, so far, brilliant Nani upfront alone. This led to Bayern really dominating possession and without Rooney on field United really struggled to hold the ball up. Perhaps a 4-3-2 would have better suited? But I for one will always say: Fergie knows best. But the red card: how soft it really was? Ribery was not going for a counterattack, he was in no goal scoring opportunity (or would have been), and in the end both pulled each other and Ribery actually elbowed Rafael. The interesting part is what happened next: five or six Bayern players surrounded the young Italian referee and three or four of them actually waved the imaginary card for him to book Rafael (an action that few years ago was made bookable by the UEFA), and he fell into the trap. It really should not happen on this level. And it was only after that when Bayern got the upper hand.
Rooney’s injury after twenty minutes. Why wasn’t he taken off earlier? He was clearly not able to do his job upfront alone. No matter how great his season has been, he should have let manager and coaches know that he is not able to play. That is something that still shows his immaturity – the will to play, no matter what – but perhaps Fergie’s should have been harder and subbed him after thirty minutes.
Why does not all goalkeepers put players on both posts? If there had been one on the front post it would have been an easy clearance for Robben “winning” goal.
How nasty, dirty, low, whatever disgusting term there is, it is to target a player’s weak spot just after the recovery. Many will say that it is part of the game, but it really is not part of football. It really has not and hopefully it really will not be. But that is exactly what Daniel van Buyten did to Rooney. The first happened after twenty minutes when the ball was played up into Rooney chest/head, but van Buyten saw it suitable to kick into Rooney’s lower shin. And that was enough. Rooney’s injured right ankle got the damage and he was out. But few minutes later van Buyten made it sure he would not come back, kicking him from behind while he was shielding the ball – incidentally to just high from his right ankle. Well done Bayern. Well done van Buyten. Clearly not accident on this level – just pathetic.
All in all it has been much better season so far United than was expected by and far in the beginning of the season. Still have five more games to make it count. (League Cup is not really trophy worthwhile to cherish alone)
Kari Enqvist: Kuoleman ja Unohtamisen Aikakirjat Hardcover: 205 pages Publisher: WSOY
To live, laugh, eat and drink, cry, and die.
Two Finnish academics, a philosopher and a physicist, have written two beautiful books about life and death, belief and religion, humanity and humor, about existentialism. Torsti Lehtinen, the philosopher, is a leading Soren Kierkegaarder in Finland and Kari Enqvist, the physicist (theoretical physics), is a known for his human approach to physics.
Both authors share stories from their past and present and let us into their lives. But the approaches couldn’t be further away. Or closer together. Lehtinen’s existentialistic philosophy is present on every page of Sika vai Sokrates while Enqvist’s in stories in Kuoleman ja unohtamisen aikakirjat revolve around the matters of the universe. But what is the difference? The humanity is on all those pages.
First goes Lehtinen:
“Jokaisella ihmisellä on ainutlaatuinen näkökulma todelisuuteen, ainutkertainen kokemusmaailma. Kaunokirjallisuus tarjoaa mahdollisuuden nähdä todellisuus toisen ihmisen silmin. Kirja on tekijänsä ja lukijansa yhteinen yritys ymmärtää elämää. Käsitys objektiivisesta todellisuudesta syntyy erilaiseten subjektiivisten käsitysten dialogista, ei siitä, että jokainen kuvittelee olevansa yksin oikeassa.
Kirjat ovat peilejä. Niissä toteutuu Theodor Adornon estetiikka: taideteos tekee tehtävänsä vasta, kun se katsoo vastaanottajaansa; ei riitä, että vastaanottaja katso teosta. Hyvä kirja ilmaisee lukijan elämäntunnon paremmin kuin lukija itse osaisi. Hän kokee: tiesin tämän, mutta en tiennyt tietäväni. Olen lainannut kirjastosta kirjoja, jotka ovat muuttaneet elämäni. Lukukokemus on ollut niin sykähdyttävä, että olen milloin suudellut kirjaa, milloin heittänyt sen seinään. Seinään heitetty ei välttämättä ole ollut huonompi kuin se, jonka sivut on suudeltu märiksi.
Eräs lukijani oli hautonut synnytyksen jälkeisessä masennustilassa itsemurhaa. Päivänä, jona hän oli ollut aikeissa toteuttaa suunnitelmansa, hän oli kuullut radiosta haastatteluni ja päättänyt lainata kirjani kirjastosta. Sen lukemisen myötä hänessä oli kasvanut ajatus, että kyllä minä jaksan, kun tuokin on jaksanut. Kirjasto voi pelastaa ihmisen hengen. ”
And then (not second) Enqvist:
“Mihin sitten uskon? Uskon, että maailmankaikkeus on suunnaton fysikaalinen systeemi, jolla ei itsellään ole toiveita tai päämääriä. Uskon, että elämä maapallolla on syntynyt onnekkaan sattuman ansiosta: olemme juuri sopivalla etäisyydellä sopivasta tähdestä. Uskon myös, että elämää löytyy monista Linnunratamme aurinkokunnista mutta että älyllinen elämä on hyvin harvinaista. Samalla tiedän, etten tiedä näitä asioita vaan että ne ovat uskomuksia. Uskon, että minuuteni on prosessi, molekyylitehtaiden kapitalistinen järjestelmä vailla kovaa ydintä ja viisivuotissuunnitelmaa tai suunnittelijaa, jota voisin kutsua itseksi. Sen istuin ei ole pelkästään aivoissani vaan koko kehoni osallistuu minätajuni säilyttämiseen. Uskon, että minuuden kokemukseni on parsittu kokoon pienistä palasista, että olen ollut monta henkilöä ja että tälläkin hetkellä aivoissani esiintyy minästäni erilaisia versioita, jotka saavat vallan tarpeen ja tilanteiden mukaan. Uskon ettei tahtoni ole vapaa vaan että kaikki toimeni, mielipiteeni, haluni ja ajatukseni syntyvät fysiikan lakeja tottelevien atomien ja molekyylien tanssista ja ovat vailla hengen ohjailua. Uskon että ”minä” on evoluutiossa valikoitunut rauhoittava kehtolaulu, tajunnassani kaikuva narratiivi, jonka aivoni rakentavat ylläpitääkseen jatkuvuuden ja kontrollin illuusiota. Uskonnollista uskoa pidän tajuntaan helposti kotoutuvana meeminä ja uskon, että uskonnot eivät vastaa mihinkään ihmiskunnan suurista kysymyksistä mutta että uskovalle ne antavat tunteen, että näihin ongelmiin olisi vastattu. Ajattelen lisäksi, että näkemykseni eivät vähennä ihmisyyden arvoa, eivät johda nihilismiin tai eettisten arvojen murentumiseen vaan että joko niistä huolimatta tai niiden ansiosta olen yleensä toiveikas, hilpeähkö, lievän pasifistinen ja varustettu omallatunnolla, joka moniin uskovaisiin verrattuna on sosiaalinen.”
Hardcover: 160 pages Publisher: Yale University Press (April 22, 2008)
I don’t think there’s anything better to put on a barbeque grid than the hamburger patty. But it’s not finished yet over there. You still need a perfect soft, but rich bun, some fresh lettuce, juicy slice of tomato, rich and sharp cheese and you’re almost there. The most important ingredient, however, is the time spent barbecuing with friends and beers (optional) on a sunny day. And before the weather allows all the above, Josh Ozersky’s The Hamburger: A History is a good place to begin.
Juicy, broiled hamburgers with just the right touch of charcoal taste from the fire have become an American institution. The way to become that symbol represents a lot of what is often argued being wrong about America, the sustaining infrastructure of the hamburger business was at best a problem and at worst a disgrace. Anyone who has a problem with the beef industry in America in necessity has a problem with hamburgers.
“”
But just what is the content of this beefy, juicy, bun-bound message? What do Americans think of when they think of the hamburger? A robust, succulent spheroid of fresh ground beef, the birthright of red-blooded citizens? Or a Styrofoam-shrouded Big Mac, mass-produced to industrial specifications and served by wage slaves to an obese, brainwashed population? Is it a sizzling disc of goodness, served in a roadside restaurant dense with local lore, or the grim end product of a secret, sinister empire of tormented animals and unspeakable slaughtering practices? Is it cooking or commodity? An icon of freedom or the quintessence of conformity?
Like any other symbol, what the burger represents depends on who you ask. But the sandwich is not, like the flag or the vanished frontier, merely a plane upon which abstract national dreams are projected. The hamburger has its own history, a thick narrative line coming down through the chronicle of modern America. It’s the story of European immigration in the nineteenth century and urbanization in the twentieth, as the German “Hamburg steak” evolved into hamburgers, gobbled by a rising class of urban factory workers.
The hamburger, that is to say isn’t just an icon, a vehicle for “myth and symbol” musings by woolgathering academics. Studying its story is one way of studying the country that invented it, and then reinvented it again and again. The symbol is just the sizzle; the meat of the hamburger’s meaning lies in how it changed the world.
But for now, let’s put aside Eric Schlosser’s influential book Fast Food Nation and Morgan Spurlock’s film Super Size Me and choose organic ingredients and spend time while making our hamburgers. Even though hamburger rose into prominence with the rise of the fast-food business I believe they are better served as a slow food. And organic.
3.Political leaders care about public opinion, but they also care about history and their place in it. They might be willing to trade present public support and admiration — or even the survival of their city or army — for a shot at immortality and a place in history books. As a British rebel put it to encourage his men to fight the Roman legions, “Think of those that went before you and of those that shall come after!”Well, they lost, and, in Tacitus’s description, an “awful silence reigned everywhere.” But he fought not as much for that day as for the past and the future. People engage in politics and war sub specie aeternitatis, with all of its consequences.
4.Money is not the sinews of war. Men are. Wealth is nice, but an enemy’s center of gravity is his soul, character, mind, and faith, not his arms or his cities. As Xenophon wrote, “It is not numbers or strength that bring victories in war. No, it is when one side goes against the enemy with the gods’ gift of a stronger morale that their adversaries, as a rule, cannot withstand them.” On another occasion, the Persians ate on tables of gold and still had a hard time defeating 300 Spartans who ate porridge. Persia’s large reservoirs of money and manpower could not bend the Greeks’ disdain for the Medes and love of independence. The Greeks never surrendered.
In the end, we will never fully comprehend power, war, or life. The biggest danger for modern leaders and students of politics is that we think we know more than we do and that we can play with political realities as if they were hard sciences. Reading these classical texts is a good antidote to modern arrogance. Politics is an art, after all.
