Skip to main content

Are today's radical trangressives just conservative moralists in drag?

"The open secret of violating a taboo with language that—through its richness, wit or rage—acknowledges the taboo, is that it represents a kind of moralizing.."

This quote comes from a thought provoking article by Lee Seigel from "The Wall Street Journal" online. I'm assuming for current purposes that this observation has more than a grain of truth in it, though some might feel there's no such secret, open or otherwise, implicit in the conscious public violation of a taboo.

But if it is so, could it therefore be that the current tsunami of willfully conspicuous sexually and culturally "transgressive" posturing in the online, broadcast and print media, that so many in that media say others complain about, is in fact an outbreak of a yearning for conservative morality?

 Now that's an interpretation that frankly hadn't occurred to me 'til now. Could it be that Miley Cyrus's ostentatious twerking and provocative gyrating is not a scream for the freedom to be more licentious, but is in reality Miley Cyrus crying out for more observance of the rules of decorum and for more sanctity to be given to expressions of personal intimacy?

The author of the article, Lee Siegel (who I now seem to make a habit of quoting), even goes on to suggest:
"From Miley Cyrus's brilliant, purposeful, repeated travesties of her wholesome image—"This is what culture is really about now," she seems to be saying—to songs by Eminem, Lady Gaga, Kanye West and others that express disgust with their own celebrity and wealth, pop culture itself seems to yearn for a time when obscenity and graphic sexual images were morally potent rather than merely titillating and profitable."

Has transgressivness in popular culture now become so pervasively common that it has truly "jumped the shark"? It seems pretty clear that the decline in quality in popular culture is now irredeemably beyond recovery. A more interesting question appears to be whether this apparently "purposeful" self recognition of the emptiness of "transgressiveness" amongst the current crop of populist icons is the harbinger of some new "radical" recognition of the merit of modesty or the sanctity of authentic personal virtue. But it seems more likely that, as usual, I, like every moralising old fart in history, have miscalculated the time within which our culture moves. I seem to recall that there were even ancient Roman and Athenian scribes, amongst others, who mused aloud in a similar vein.

I suspect it could take some eons before we humans sate our collective appetites for unrestrained vulgarity. For a start we'd probably nearly all have to be old farts for that to be even possible (but hey that makes it actually possible too, since, as I understand it, our population is aging fast). Perhaps then we might begin to see some new version of individual righteousness given widespread community credence, with its sacredness acknowledged and treated with sanctity. Yeah, as if that's going to happen any time soon.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Michael Jackson, martyr ?

. Someone has to die for their beliefs to be a martyr . Drudge pointed to headlines last Friday saying that Jackson's was a " Death by Showbusines s". So in the sense that Jackson seems to have died for his belief in celebrity, yes, he might be called a martyr. I never got Michael Jackson. Thriller didn't thrill me at all ( Now Noel Coward, that's another story ). But I did get a bit of a kick from seeing others get him. He was boppy and catchy and slick, as well as monumentally fluffy and hugely impaired. What I struggle with is the apparently massive consequentiality of fluffiness and impairment like Jackson's. What is the fuss about the passing of a semi-talented song and dance weirdo from decades past? Boris Johnson, the London Mayor, has had a stab at explaining it to we mystified souls who struggle to get with the programme. He reckons it's just like Princess Di. And I agree, to the extent that I was almost as unprepared for and dumbfounded by th...

Bullshit detection is our main AI protection

The volume of chatter in recent online musings about the hydra headed peril of AI dominance, is becoming ear piercing. These piercings will likely support even more garish burbles of thought to dangle decoratively in front of both the curious and accidental victims. A brief diversion - it seems one of the more remarked upon "tells" of the presence of AI in a piece of writing at the moment, is what I now know to call the " Em Dash " (_). Thank you NYT of 18 Sept 2025.  I'll keep an eye out for them. And I'll need to, if I'm to live up to the pleas of the balance of this post. The main subject of this post has been prompted by yet another article that Arts & Letters Daily has pointed me to recently. It's entitled " Large Language Muddle "  and is an editors article from an online magazine called "n+1" published in the Fall of 2025. The central proposition of this muddle piece seems to be that we human authors need to fight back...

The list of "tell"words for LLM speak grows, but these Bots are now teaching us to speak like them ..

According to an article in the Washington Post on 20 August 2025 by Adam Aleksic " people are starting to talk like ChatGTP ".  The previous post here on the Realm pointed to some words that have been nominated as indicators that a Large Language Model (LLM) is the likely author of the piece. According to Mr Aleksic's article we can now add to our list of" delve ", " adept ", " realm " and " meticulous ", the words " intricate " and " commendable ".  As he says elsewhere, it is becoming hard to keep up. But his more telling point is that as LLMs become more and more prevalent contributors in our discourse, it's not just the bots that are using these words, we've all started using them more too; in our own speech.  It seems that the feedback loop from the LLMs gulping up so much of their own outputs when scraping content from the web, is intensifying this linguistic shift.   Aleksic says:  ...  In the two...