It's not that I disagree with Hitchens on two key points - that the recent media frenzy about Paris Hilton has been ugly and distasteful, and that Hilton herself is a rather sad individual - what set me off was the hectoring and morally self-righteous tone of the whole piece. Here was rich ground upon which to explore the social meaning of the whole "Hilton saga", while at the same time expressing some genuine concern for a damaged human being. But what does Hitchens do? He indulges in self-righteous diatribe replete with artificial, self-referencing mea culpas, the ultimate effect of which was to proclaim Hitchens' bombastic sense of his own moral superiority.
Why am I getting so worked up about this? Because I am getting rather tired of the presently prevailing notion that intellectual and moral rigour are synonymous with aggressive conceit and plain rudeness towards those with whom one disagrees. From Richard Dawkins' anti-theist crusades (in which Hitchens himself has participated) to every two-bit commentator and self-proclaimed moral crusader on talk-back radio, there's a wash of loud-mouths out there who believe their right to expression also involves a right to lambaste and vilify.
And I, frankly, am sick of it. Most of all, I am sick of occasions when, even in the midst of making a valid point, someone nonetheless stoops to name calling or sneering deprecation.
And so I fired off a letter to The Age. I'm afraid I was rather annoyed when I wrote it, and it resembles a Hitchensesque rant. But I think I made my point. You can read the rather editorially truncated letter here, (you'll need to scroll down to the letter entitled "Holier Hitchens"!!), or you can read the unedited version reproduced below. (You may want to read the article first to place the letter in context).
Christopher Hitchens' pompous, phoney counter-culturalism (The Age 13/6) reveals that he possesses not a single shred of genuine compassion for Paris Hilton, only that he views her sad plight as another opportunity to vent his splenetic sense of moral superiority over the rest of the world.
I say this having agreed with Hitchens' on two points: firstly, the hysterical media coverage of Hilton's travails has been truly obscene; and, secondly, that Hilton herself is a rather forlorn figure whose narcissistic expectations of life as a meal ticket are reflective of the venal undercurrent of consumer capitalism.
But Hitchens himself is not content with exploring the fact that if Ms Hilton had not been brought up as a self-involved person-turned-consumer-product surrounded by fawning lackeys, her current encounter with the legal system may not have been as traumatic as it evidently has been. Within these issues lie genuine cause for reflection on the nature of our society, as well as compassion for the damaged, truncated human being who is the subject of Hitchens' rant.
Instead, Hitchens uses this situation as the pretext for a histrionic diatribe as narcissistic and self-important as the banal pronouncements of any self-proclaimed "celebrity". This is made even more odious by the artificial self-admonishments for involving himself in the "Hilton drama" which punctuate his piece. Here is Hitchens in all his glorious self-righteousness: condemning the rest of the world while proclaiming his own moral superiority for having sufficient conscience to feel bad about making a buck off Hilton's misery.
No more of this smug artificiality. If the whole Hilton saga must produce an op-ed piece, at least let it be in a form that incisively dissects the social meaning of this matter while at the same time displaying genuine compassion for a sad human being.
So there you have it: that's me in attack mode. Now I'll just go back to being a quiet little church mouse...
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Learned conversation is either the affectation of the ignorant or the profession of the mentally unemployed. (Oscar Wilde)
No comments:
Post a Comment