information age of hysteria
Back in January, at the very beginning of this course, we had various discussions about the nature of postmodernism and how we might understand it in our own lives. Through these discussions we ended up landing on the topic of memes, the distinctive “Gen-Z nihilism” brand of internet humor, and how the current popular culture we (by “we” I mean The Youth) have grown up in arguably incorporates tenets of postmodernism into our most fundamental worldview. As the novels we read have gotten progressively closer to the present day in terms of when they were set and published, it seems to get more and more interesting to look at how postmodernism in literature is related to the postmodernism that we see, now, in our everyday life.
As we’ve been reading Libra, one of the ways it is different is how, compared to all of our previous novels, the historical event it is centered around is the closest to the present, and, as has been explained in various class discussions already, it also occupies a unique role in the American popular consciousness. The JFK assassination was arguably the first major event to be interpreted with the frame of reference that is now ubiquitous -- the simultaneous existence of a huge amount of available information, and yet, no consensus on what the truth actually is. Obviously, our modern-day “fake news” and general disillusionment with the truth is not because of the public reaction JFK assassination -- but the assassination does offer a fascinating look at how this dynamic fundamentally changed the way we relate to politics and the world. In a way the assassination marks the beginning of an era that Green Day very accurately described in the song, American Idiot, that I got the title of this post from -- an Information Age, in which we can access nearly unlimited information almost instantly, and yet also an age of fundamental disagreements -- hysteria -- over objective truth (found those WMD’s yet?).
I would argue that one major difference between Libra and the previous books we’ve read is that the other novels take a historical period or event that is usually interpreted very seriously and offer a way to view it through a postmodern lens, while Libra uses a postmodern lens to interpret historical event that is already almost inherently postmodern. We aren’t very far into the novel yet, but it will be interesting to see how this might change our interpretation of DeLillo’s arguments and ideas in this novel. In past novels, the juxtaposition of a postmodern disregard for facts with objective historical truth we’ve been taught to revere is jarring, and forces us to reconsider our own ideas of how we ourselves relate to history. When we read Mumbo Jumbo, it felt like a dramatic shift to our unconscious historical paradigm to insert Atonist influence into every worldwide event -- but seeing conspiracies everywhere in the JFK assassination is so mainstream that there’s barely a shift at all.
So far it seems like in Libra, DeLillo uses the inherently postmodern nature of JFK’s assassination to work towards slightly different goals in this novel than in others we’ve read. Rather than making a statement about racial justice, morality, or the relation of history to the individual, the question the reader is forced to consider in this novel is instead, the question of the truth itself. We are put in a position similar to that of Nicholas Branch in that we are left to sort through massive amounts of compelling evidence to find the real story, but doing so is far from easy, or even possible. In a sense the question we’re faced with has shifted from “What’s the point of history?” back closer to that first question we discussed in class so often in January -- “What does it mean for “History” to exist at all?”. I think that in the context of our current political situation (by "situation" I mean "massive garbage fire") this is a particularly interesting question to consider, and especially, the ways in which the cultural attitudes about JFK's assassination echo back to us in cultural attitudes today. What does it mean for us to fully embrace the postmodern implications that "history" itself is subject to interpretation and, arguably, impossible to fully represent accurately? I’m not sure what the conclusion to this question will prove to be, but it seems likely that it will end with an answer as postmodern as the Kennedy assassination itself -- and one that is no less mysterious to interpret.
As we’ve been reading Libra, one of the ways it is different is how, compared to all of our previous novels, the historical event it is centered around is the closest to the present, and, as has been explained in various class discussions already, it also occupies a unique role in the American popular consciousness. The JFK assassination was arguably the first major event to be interpreted with the frame of reference that is now ubiquitous -- the simultaneous existence of a huge amount of available information, and yet, no consensus on what the truth actually is. Obviously, our modern-day “fake news” and general disillusionment with the truth is not because of the public reaction JFK assassination -- but the assassination does offer a fascinating look at how this dynamic fundamentally changed the way we relate to politics and the world. In a way the assassination marks the beginning of an era that Green Day very accurately described in the song, American Idiot, that I got the title of this post from -- an Information Age, in which we can access nearly unlimited information almost instantly, and yet also an age of fundamental disagreements -- hysteria -- over objective truth (found those WMD’s yet?).
I would argue that one major difference between Libra and the previous books we’ve read is that the other novels take a historical period or event that is usually interpreted very seriously and offer a way to view it through a postmodern lens, while Libra uses a postmodern lens to interpret historical event that is already almost inherently postmodern. We aren’t very far into the novel yet, but it will be interesting to see how this might change our interpretation of DeLillo’s arguments and ideas in this novel. In past novels, the juxtaposition of a postmodern disregard for facts with objective historical truth we’ve been taught to revere is jarring, and forces us to reconsider our own ideas of how we ourselves relate to history. When we read Mumbo Jumbo, it felt like a dramatic shift to our unconscious historical paradigm to insert Atonist influence into every worldwide event -- but seeing conspiracies everywhere in the JFK assassination is so mainstream that there’s barely a shift at all.
So far it seems like in Libra, DeLillo uses the inherently postmodern nature of JFK’s assassination to work towards slightly different goals in this novel than in others we’ve read. Rather than making a statement about racial justice, morality, or the relation of history to the individual, the question the reader is forced to consider in this novel is instead, the question of the truth itself. We are put in a position similar to that of Nicholas Branch in that we are left to sort through massive amounts of compelling evidence to find the real story, but doing so is far from easy, or even possible. In a sense the question we’re faced with has shifted from “What’s the point of history?” back closer to that first question we discussed in class so often in January -- “What does it mean for “History” to exist at all?”. I think that in the context of our current political situation (by "situation" I mean "massive garbage fire") this is a particularly interesting question to consider, and especially, the ways in which the cultural attitudes about JFK's assassination echo back to us in cultural attitudes today. What does it mean for us to fully embrace the postmodern implications that "history" itself is subject to interpretation and, arguably, impossible to fully represent accurately? I’m not sure what the conclusion to this question will prove to be, but it seems likely that it will end with an answer as postmodern as the Kennedy assassination itself -- and one that is no less mysterious to interpret.
I really like the idea of JFK's assassination marking the beginning of the era of mass information, mass disinformation, and the inability to differentiate the two. Before the widespread use of mass communication, i.e TV, the level of sheer dispensation needed was basically inconceivable. In addition, the circulation of zines and homemade newspapers also began to grow during this period, which meant that people could form sort of proto-Internet forums- which, as we all know, is the root of much modern misinformation. I can't answer your questions about what a truly postmodern interpretation of history looks like, as I suspect no one can, but it's certainly interesting to consider, and in my opinion, a more accurate picture of history than attempting to categorize it wholly objectively.
ReplyDeleteWhen Mr. Mitchell brought up the idea that Kennedy's assassination was the first time we saw an event being interpreted in this way: Mass information diluting and preventing any sense of objective reality, that was really hard for me to comprehend. Because, as you pointed out, this has become so ubiquitous. I can name dozens of events just in the past few years in which there are fifty different narratives due to the massive flood of information we now have access to (none of which is prioritized over others): Benghazi, 2016 election and Russia, Obama's birth certificate, Flight MH370, to name a few. I wonder if we'll ever end up solving this issue, if our generation or the next will find a way to sift past the information or if this is just the reality we have to live with now.
ReplyDeleteI think that the concept that we're basically living out a postmodernist world, in which no information can be trusted on a surface level and we're all shown so much propaganda and biased media is both really interesting but also scary. The fact that there are people who are able to just shove so much information at us that it becomes a reality is extremely frightening - with enough preparation and power, it's not too much of a jump to say that the media could quite literally convince us of almost anything, if they got enough people saying it.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post! This discussion also makes me wonder about the truth of the historical narratives before the JFK assassination. Was there truly a better way to sort through information or a concrete truth about what happened? Or was it just easier for someone to pick a narrative that fit their interests and disseminate it without meeting opposition?
ReplyDeleteThis is an awesome post. I think it's always useful to try to understand a historical narrative in other ways than just being "mass shooting". While many events in history are overlooked by some category just slapped on them, I think Libra is a really cool way to combat that and take it to another level, one that is more human and understandable.
ReplyDelete