Theory as (National) Family Therapy

To preface this, I want it to be known that I am not here to ask for you to indulge or accept my opinions, but instead, I’m asking you to see my experience of remorse over the last week – and how this course and its material has been more valuable than a psychiatrist to synthesize said experience.

The reading we had due on November 8^th (election day) was a chapter on hegemony by Dick Hebdige, written in 1979, nearly forty years ago. Here’s an excerpt of what he said:

“Subcultures represent ‘noise’ (as opposed to sound): interference in the orderly sequence which leads from the media. We should therefore not underestimate the signifying power of the spectacular subculture not only as a metaphor for political anarchy ‘out there’ but as an actual mechanism of semantic disorder: a kind of temporary blockage in the system of representation” (Hebdige 1979, 130).

I read this on November 7^th with an interpretation that saw this quote for my hopes: that the “subculture” developed by (then candidate) Trump’s campaign was simply a “temporary blockage in the system of representation” – and that it was nothing more than (unsubstantive) signifying power he was creating.

I read this today with a totally different interpretation. The heart of what Hebdige is trying to tell us, I think, is that we shouldn’t write off subcultures as a “metaphor for political anarchy ‘out there.’” Yet that’s exactly what I did for the entirety of this election. I wrote off Trump supporters as a subculture of people that thought uncritically and refused to look beyond their leader’s rhetoric. I, along with many Hillary Clinton supporters, thought I was “go[ing] high when [they were] going low,” as often said by First Lady Michelle Obama. But it’s clear that’s exactly what the problem was.

In attempting to “go high,” I took the route that many people, especially Liberals, and especially White Liberals, are criticized for taking: the route of moral superiority. The route of the “not-racist,” “not-bigot,” “not-xenophobe,” etc. Like others, I laughed with friends about how ignorant Trump voters were, and how they were “voting against their own best interests.” I unabashedly joined in on mocking mutual friends who were considering voting for Trump, sending them emails asking for thoughts on the latest scandal and sharing the results like sixth-grade playground gossip. My position of moral superiority and laughable polarization ended up being anything but “going higher.”

And yet I didn’t see it that way. I saw what could be summarized as shaming as the only reflexive way to cope with the messaging so opposite to my opinions. So in “going high” and taking what I thought was the moral “high-ground,” I was actually arming Trump supporters and undecided voters with more ammunition and frustration, more polarization. More reasons to vote against the Hillary Clinton, against Liberals and against those doing this.

The point of all this: Donald Trump’s election is a needed wake-up call. A desperate attempt for one part of the country – the part that many Hillary supporters would consider the ‘out there’ Hebdige talks about – to communicate with the other part of the country which refuses to even listen to its frustrations, simply because they’ve chosen to “go high” and categorize all-things-Trump as racism, bigotry, xenophobia and ignorance.

The real issue here? Our country can’t communicate. Our two Americas are like two parents on the brink of divorce – one is bringing up deep-seeded belief differences, struggles, and already-existing distance with the other, and the second is refusing to listen because of the way it’s being communicated. Trump’s America, the insulated parent who feels misunderstood, elected Trump as a radical “F-U” to the other parent and its family (ex. the media – who incorrectly predicted the election up until the last minute and the ‘political establishment’ – which has little idea what a Trump Presidency will look like)

The irony? Both parents are equally terrible at communicating. Our other reading due on November 8^th was written by Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno in 1944 – over seventy years ago. Here’s an excerpt I find solace in:

“Each branch of culture is unanimous within itself and all are unanimous together. Even the aesthetic manifestations of political opposites proclaim the same inflexible rhythm.” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 53).

So, in the end, I hope this election helps us realize that our communication issues are one thing we have deeply in common – that many of us have carried that “same inflexible rhythm” over the last two years, whether we recognized it or not. Now is the time to recognize it (and possibly apologize for your part in it). Whichever parent you supported, it's time to to acknowledge the pain of the other and make an effort to communicate.

Also worth pointing out is the fact that three theorists, writing up to seventy-two years ago, during World War II, were able to synthesize this. Our issues are nothing new. We're just finding new ways to solve them.

Peace,
-UA191