This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I have read some Houellebecq, but not "Submission" (and am not likely to; I think he's a decent writer but his views are too far removed from my own). What's interesting there is that the protagonist of the novel, as you describe, did his thesis on J-K Huysmans.
Huysmans had a long career working in the French Civil Service and as a novelist started off in the Decadent movement, the most famous work of his in that vein is À rebours which I have read and boy yeah, it's cynical, decadent, and the perfect confection of a particular literary movement and intellectual attitude, a very salon novel if you will. You can definitely see the influence on "The Picture of Dorian Grey".
What's most striking, though, is Huysmans' later life as he (it would seem) sincerely converted, or re-converted, to Catholicism. So I have to wonder is this a sub-theme that Houellebecq intends? Is he comparing Catholicism in 19th century France to Islam in his invented 20th century France? Do we take it that François will cynically convert to Islam, as Huysmans sincerely converted to Catholicism? That he will tailor Huysmans' journey from secularism to religious belief in order to fit in with the agenda of his new masters at the Sorbonne?
Even more thought-provoking, will François sincerely find religion in his conversion? Is that the true threat here, or is it the lazy liberal lassitude that leaves both François and France open to the vigorous and conquering Islamic influence?
We now know that 20th century hadn't turned to be Catholic, despite flashy conversions of many artistic and intellectual types.
In this analogy, Islamic threat will also ultimately turn to be one big nothingburger. Doubt that Houellebecq wants to make this analogy.
More options
Context Copy link
I need to read Huysmans before I read this novel again, because I'm almost entirely convinced that François' piece that he writes about Huysmans during the book (as an introduction to a new edition of the collected works) is cynical and wrong. From my understanding of the second to last chapter, François basically labels Huysmans as a hedonist whose real interests lie in just submitting to his passions, exactly what François plans to do when he converts to Islam. Right before he decides to probably convert, François also takes a trip to the monastery where Huysmans had his revelation/began his conversion. He lives within about 12 hours because he can't handle the austere environment and also I think because he feels guilty about what he's about to do when he gets back.
I think the conversion has to be completely cynical, and Huysmans serves as a foil rather than an emulation. But again, I'd have to read Huysmans to be more sure.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link