Wednesday, February 26, 2014

richard price - observations on the nature of civil liberty, the principles of government, and the justice and policy of the war with america

"overall? this is a short text, but it took me a long time to get through it because i found it very difficult to put it into context. i suspect that that difficulty placing it into context may be why it's not often cited today. whatever it's value as a liberalizing document in it's own time, it reads off today as a manifesto of the type of social conservatism that is often found on the religious right. yet, price was a major opponent of no less a conservative icon than edmund burke himself. when the lines are this blurry, it's no wonder that he's been left unclaimed in the second half of the twentieth century. however, that doesn't negate the text's historical value. it may not have a direct successor today, but it may perhaps be traced forwards in time as an influential text on the socially conservative aspect of the progressive movement of the late nineteenth century."

that was also painful. i had this idea i could do fifty pages of reading in the morning and record all night, but i found myself getting through a few paragraphs of this thing per day. i have to admit i was hugely distracted by youtube, as you may have noticed.


i'm not giving up on the idea yet, but i'm thinking song/book alternation may be a better idea.




derp

i was tangentially blown off course to this text when attempting to get in between the ideological debate carried out by burke and paine over the revolution in france. i seem to have gotten some wires crossed (i'm going to guess it was complications from a google search) in thinking that the editor of my copy of burke's reflections on the revolution in france claimed that his text was in response to this one. rather, the claim was that burke was replying to a sermon given by rev./dr. price in 1789. this text is claimed by some, however, to have had a strong influence on certain american revolutionaries, so i've decided to give it a read through for historical purposes.

price splits his text into two sections. the first states a few assumptions about liberty and is likewise split into three sections: liberty in general, civil liberties as they relate to government and what could vaguely be called sovereignty in the context of empire. price cites locke in his preface and, without having read much locke directly, i'm willing to take him at face value in his claim that he's merely stating lockean principles. the second section discusses the possibility of a war with the american colonies and is really the crux of the text. as the first section is merely a statement of principles, deconstructing it in too much detail is to largely miss the point of his argument about the possible upcoming war against the colonies. however, there are a few curiosities that are worth pointing out to more broadly understand what 'liberty' meant, as a concept, amongst liberals (including proto-anarchists and proto-socialists) of the time period.

price specifies four different types of liberty: physical, religious, civil and moral. the first three are intuitive; the last references the liberty to not be controlled by 'contrary principles'. today, most people would acknowledge that intellectual liberty (the liberty to define our own principles) is a key type of liberty and contrast it directly against this idea of 'moral liberty' that price is asserting. i think it's worthwhile to try and understand this a little bit better in case i see it jump up elsewhere.

would it not be easy to derive the idea of defining our own principles from not being controlled by those of others? sure, and this is the intuitive connection between moral and intellectual liberty. however, price is being far too specific to allow that derivation. to price, "contrary principles" means "principles contrary to christian principles". specifically, he claims that those who are "controlled by passions" have lost their moral liberty and those without moral liberty are "wicked and detestable". again, it's easy to claim this can be converted into modern language by talking about various types of sexual oppression, but he speaks not of this but of "licentiousness", which no doubt referred to any kind of sexuality that was not properly puritan. he takes it a step further than this in comparing licentiousness to a type of despotism. while he's not explicit, it's clear that he means to state that the despot is satan. his concept of moral freedom is consequently one of freedom from enslavement to satanic principles and, while this is maybe an easily understood relic of classical thinking, it is not at all consistent with intellectual liberty. rather, it reduces the parliament to a rubber stamp for the church and threatens to oppress all those who do not conform to the doctrine dictated by the church-state; "moral freedom" is the so-called "freedom" to not be exposed to ideas that differ from the state's (and church's) official pronunciations. this is 1776, not 1984.

it's not entirely clear how far price would enforce his right to "moral freedom" in an attempt to suppress "intellectual freedom" and emancipate those whom he considers to be enslaved to their corrupt desires. he does suggest that licentiousness should be restricted by laws, but he's also careful to point out that despotism is the greater threat than licentiousness. on the other hand, he makes it clear that he believes that people have the "right" to "protect" themselves from influences that may lead them away from the church. he also seems to reject the idea of a written constitution - specifically because it may restrict government in punishing "licentiousness". i'm really not able to develop a cogent thought from that seemingly contradictory mess of ideas, other than to derive the somewhat outlandish view that price believed that restricting "licentiousness" was a valid act of communitarian democracy, in the sense that it protects the majority from harm (as he sees it). that is, he seems to be arguing in favour of the tyranny of the majority and specifically when it comes to sexuality. such thinking seems better suited to the spanish inquisition than to british liberalism, and yet here it is in an important revolutionary document. i cannot make further sense of it, other than to applaud jefferson's insistence on the lockean notion of separating church and state in an environment where not doing so could have been truly catastrophic.

i also want to take note of how haphazardly price glosses over the problems of corruption that are endemic in government. it does not seem as though price is interested in the kinds of objections that an ancient philosopher like socrates may have provided against democracy. nor does he provide arguments for his claims, but this is to be forgiven due to the nature of the first section as a statement of principles rather than an exposition of them. it is somewhat annoying, though, that, even while arguing against authority, he asserts his arguments in the form of sometimes inane assertions. it may indeed be obvious that pure democracy becomes less and less reasonable as population size increases, but it in no way follows that "a free government may be established in the largest state" by setting up a decentralized representative democracy. while price correctly points out that money is a possible corrupting influence in representative democracies, centralized or not, he does not present any kind of argument as to why his proposals will not lead to that kind of corruption or why "in these circumstances," of decentralized representative democracy, "each separate state would be secure against the interference of sovereign power in its private concerns, and, therefore, would possess liberty". could the corrupting forces not merely simultaneously co-opt several states? i'm not saying they must or can't, i'm just pointing out that there's no argument at all and that reduces price to some kind of cheap mystical guru, pumping out oracular nonsense that seems almost precious in hindsight.

he closes the first section by arguing (i use that word lightly) that empires are impossible to maintain and always eventually result in dissolution. the empire must demand certain things of it's client states, which it's client states will see as rightfully theirs, leading to a conflict developing between positions of imperial authority (which are illegitimate) and expressions of popular rule. the imperial state will need to assert itself by force, which will produce a violent reaction. this is a much easier set of statements to take at face value, although it's perhaps no longer reasonable in our world to think a popular movement can offer any kind of violent resistance to a centralized state. of course, he's setting himself up for a discussion of the situation in america, which he turns to in his second section.

while price provides moral and constitutional arguments, and these form an important part of his perspective, what he's really suggesting is that it is not in britain's self-interest to try and suppress the colonies by force. price is by no means a revolutionary himself. rather, his main concern is the strength of the empire and how to maintain america within it in a way that both grants the colonists a higher level of autonomy and maintains the cohesion of a greater, trans-oceanic british civilization. the real core of his opposition to military action consequently reduces to his perception that such a conflict is unwinnable, from the british perspective; that is to say that the crux of his essay is to suggest that the crown ought to have been using more enlightened tactics than they were using in order to maintain the empire.

was the probability of success really so remote? well, it depended entirely on how many people could be convinced to fight, and price realized that. his calculation assumed that the british empire could not gather any recruits from russia, india or canada (a clear underestimation) and also assumed that every single colonist would fight against the empire (a clear exaggeration that, as a canadian, is especially absurd to me). he consequently derives a force of 40,000 imperial british soldiers vs. 500,000 american colonists. in reality, the loyalists in america actually outnumbered the revolutionaries; the empire had a large numerical advantage in the war. price continues by suggesting that blockading the colonies could not truly harm them because they were entirely self-sufficient. he once again becomes incoherent here, in suggesting that the blockade he opposes would be an act of providence to deliver the colonists from the temptation of foreign luxuries.

throughout his arguments, price persistently returns to this romanticized conception of the american colonists as a pious, pure entity that understands and practices an undiluted, true kind of liberty and continually contrasts them against his perception of the british as corrupted by earthly desires. it's maybe easy to forget at this point that the puritan founding myth was as much of a british invention as an american one and that the historical roots of it carried on in britain for at least as long as it did in america. that is to say that price was producing british stereotypes of america while speaking to a british audience. ulterior motives that price may have had aside, one gets the impression that the british would have generally taken this entirely outlandish, romanticized idealization at face value. the following passage illustrates this:

In this hour of tremendous danger it would become us to turn our thoughts to Heaven. This is what our brethren in the Colonies are doing. From one end of North-America to the other they are fasting and praying. But what are we doing? We are ridiculing them as fanatics, and scoffing at religion, We are running wild after pleasure and forgetting every thing serious and decent at masquerades. We are trafficking for boroughs, perjuring ourselves at elections, and selling ourselves for places. Which side then is Providence likely to favour?

price even ends the text (somewhat hilariously) by comparing america to jesus: he asks the colonists to forgive the empire for it's oppression, as it knows not what it is doing.

on the brighter side of things, it should be noted that price had a fairly refreshing view of indigenous concerns, relative to the period. while he ultimately puts the question aside, seemingly due to the perception that it is an argument he can't win, his articulation both of british massacres in india and of native american sovereignty demonstrate that these were not unknown moral concerns at the time:

If sailing along a coast can give a right to a country, then might the people of Japan become, as soon as they please, the proprietors of Britain. Nothing can be more chimerical than property founded on such a reason. If the land on which the colonies first settled had any proprietors, they were the natives.

indeed, they were.

another thing that price seems abstractly (if not explicitly) aware of is the revolution as a process of recentering the empire in washington, rather than one of an independent entity breaking off and starting a new nation. while he upholds the constitutional principle of "no taxation without representation", he also makes it clear that he doesn't really see the colonists as representing a new national identity that in any way transcends their inherent britishness. he demonstrates this by projecting a possible future where the hanoverian kings (or some other aristocratic family of continental despots) have reduced britain to an authoritarian monarchy, consequently creating a situation where the colonists are the remaining descendants of traditional concepts of british liberty. such a future is one where the colonies would be drastically more populous, have a much larger economy, be more intellectually advanced and command a much stronger military. out of this, price is able to project a fantasy where america is both morally and realistically superior to britain. he dares not suggest that britain would be forced into submission, but the implication is between the lines. he then uses this projection to argue for reconciliation with the colonists out of british self-interest.

overall? this is a short text, but it took me a long time to get through it because i found it very difficult to put it into context. i suspect that that difficulty placing it into context may be why it's not often cited today. whatever it's value as a liberalizing document in it's own time, it reads off today as a manifesto of the type of social conservatism that is often found on the religious right. yet, price was a major opponent of no less a conservative icon than edmund burke himself. when the lines are this blurry, it's no wonder that he's been left unclaimed in the second half of the twentieth century. however, that doesn't negate the text's historical value. it may not have a direct successor today, but it may perhaps be traced forwards in time as an influential text on the socially conservative aspect of the progressive movement of the late nineteenth century.

full text:
http://www.constitution.org/price/price_3.htm

http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/books/congress/E/211.P930.1776b/index.html
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/02/25/scho-f25.html

immediate reaction to the new st vincent record

deathtokoalas
i'm not really willing to point any fingers at david byrne. my perception of what was going on there was that byrne essentially hired her to write songs for him. she seemed to be the dominant artist in the arrangement. by far. it's sort of annoying that byrne's inflated sense of importance got a refill from this.

rather, it seems like she's been listening to a lot of tuneyards and is trying to integrate more of an idm/electronic sound into her style. it's a good idea on paper. certainly, radiohead could have delved a lot deeper into the warp records catalog than they actually did. but what i'm getting on the first few listens is that it's come with a trade-off in a lesser amount of attention paid to the arrangements. well, sometimes we just want to clear our heads.

there's some goodness, no doubt. but it sounds like a transition album to me.


Anon Woll
Except she has said before it was a 50/50 process when it came to the songwriting.  He came up with the big band idea and they went from there.

deathtokoalas
well, conceptually, maybe, but i think that's being extremely generous insofar as the idea of songwriting is concerned. i really don't think that david byrne has the slightest idea how to write those kinds of horn parts. insofar as what she's saying is true, that sounds like byrne vaguely describing an idea and annie actually writing it out - which is a process that used to be called "commissioning a composer".

something else that crossed my mind repeatedly was "wow. annie clark is really a big upgrade over adrian belew.". and i'm actually a substantial belew fan.

the point is simply that this "hanging around with david byrne too much" stuff is really backwards. and maybe even a little sexist.

Anon Woll
I think that you got my words twisted.   He proposed the idea of making the record with a horn section and touring with it and she went "that sounds fun, let's do it", then they both composed and wrote lyrics on the album, like a near 50/50 split.

I am not totally defending David Byrne or anything or gonna be part of the "WOW pffft look what she picked up from him" crowd because this actually reminded me a bit of "Marrow" more than a "Love This Giant" song, with that kind of constant staccato and almost march-y kind of feel in all of the non-chorus parts.  I just am saying he deserves slightly more credit than "dude who hired St. Vincent to write songs for him".  She is her own artist and has been developing her stage and studio craft for years and years now.  And yeah, it is backwards and most likely sexist.  Sucks but whatever. Looks like she may be the most successful with this record so haters can eat it.

BubbaZen10
I think David could handle those horn parts. And while i'm actually impressed with her playing, putting her on a par with Adrian Belew? REALLY? Maybe i haven't seen enough of her playing, but that sure seems like a stretch. I really am liking it a lot though. Been a while since some new(er) music grabbed my attention like this.

And btw, wtf did koalas ever do to you??!! ;)

William Sanders
I'm mostly sure that talk of a Byrne influence stems from her change in appearance, an added vibe of eccentricity that includes her use of choreographed dancing/movements during her live show. Byrne implemented the dancing on the Love This Giant tour and she liked the added dynamic, so she's doing it on her own now. That seems like influence to me.

As for the notion of sexism, you're forgetting the stark contrast in legendary status between the two songwriter/performers. Byrne has been a legend longer than Annie has been playing guitar. You can "think" whatever you'd like about who came up with what arrangements, or you can "think" Byrne's not capable of creating those kinds of horn parts, but since you don't actually know any of this, you come off as less than intelligent. 

deathtokoalas
her appearance hasn't changed at all, and you're not doing a very good job at comprehending what i wrote. the obvious truth is that david byrne is not a musician in any sense, let alone the kind of trained musician that clearly wrote those parts. he blatantly has absolutely no idea whatsoever how to sing in key, let alone how to write those kinds of horn parts. in a situation where you have a very capable and educated person on one side and what is basically a lucky opportunistic hack on the other it's not difficult to figure who is doing all of the actual labour.

again, if you'd try a little harder to understand the dynamics involved, you'd realize that byrne has no claim to "legendary status" at all. what he's done throughout his career is piggy back on other people's ideas. the idea that there's some kind of hierarchical difference is precisely the sexist bullshit that i'm calling out: she's a musician and he isn't. you're only claiming otherwise due to a perceived gender misbalance. so, it would do you some good to try and understand the situation properly in terms of balances of power and media interpretation before you start accusing other people of deficits of intelligence.

the foolish thing to think in this situation is that byrne was anything other than the lucky recipient of an eccentric woman fawning over somebody she had a crush on in her teenage years. so, i'll state it in easier to understand terms for you: the idea that byrne is a legend and st. vincent is not is precisely the sexist bullshit that needs to be called out. rather, annie clark is one of the most talented and interesting musicians of our era, and david byrne is a has been that was never more than an overrated hack that took credit for other people's ideas when he was something to begin with.

is that easier for you to understand?

BubbaZen10
Longer than she's been playing guitar?? Hell man, how old is that gal? Try longer than she's been alive! ;)

The "people turn your tv on and throw it out the window" part definitely reminds me a bit of  "Burnin' Down the House." (that descending part is similar) She's working with the guy, and  is probably a fan of his music, so i'm sure there's an influence there, but i definitely hear a lot of other influences coming from her that maybe people don't pick up on. I really see and hear some Cabaret Voltaire in both the video and some of the sounds.

deathtokoalas
yeah.

i think annie's a huge nin fan, personally.

to put it another way, if we were talking about an eno/byrne collaboration, or a byrne/belew collaboration, it would be all about how byrne was hanging out while they did all the work. but when it's a young, attractive woman? it's his superior legendary essence that's managed to rub off a little on the lucky gal.

and that's bullshit.

William Sanders
I stopped reading after "her appearance hasn't changed at all".

I did catch a little of your ramble not far from where I type. Annie Clark will be a legend, she's as talented or more so than Byrne, but she's still young and working towards it. There's a difference, unlike yourself I'm not hellbent on making this an issue of sexism. I won't be supplying the false sense of vindication for you today. Take care.

deathtokoalas
too many words for you, william? not used to reading that much at the same time?

there's no need to get your boxers all unironed about it, either. it's just the way the world works.

BubbaZen10
Man, let me make this clear; i can see a few influences from Byrne's old days, but since i just recently got into this gal and this band, i have looked at other videos on here, and i personally think that, musically, Annie wipes the floor with David Byrne. This is one talented person. (but David IS a better musician than you are giving him credit for here, most certainly)

For real man, NIN definitely in there! I hear a lot of different things coming from her. She's sharp, and has obviously absorbed a lot, like a good musician would. I get how some fans on here are baggin' on this song, and i get why. It's never fun when a band you love goes a little pop or mainsteam to attract new people (like me) but this is just a good damn song, period.

Now, about her being better than Adrian Belew? BULLSHIT!! I saw him with King Crimson in the 80's. She's good. VERY good. She is not at that level yet! ;)

Btw, The Cabs are who Trent ripped off!!!!!! ;)

I think you'll appreciate this song. Look up Sensoria by Cabaret Voltaire.  You'll hear it a little i think. She does a backing vocal line that reminds me of that song.

That is the REAL shit man. Where a lot that you probably like came from. Music-wise, and video-wise. That video was in the MomA. Groundbreaking stuff.

deathtokoalas
trent took a bit from cabaret voltaire in his earliest incarnation, as well as a lot from ministry, bits from coil and foetus and neubauten and a substantial amount from bowie - and he's trying to look like ogre from skinny puppy. i had my industrial phase in the mid to late 90s. and you can hear a bit of that in her sequencing.

but the bit that reznor added himself was this sort of quirkiness. well, it was expanded on in some of the remixes as well. i can really hear that in her writing at points, especially her guitar playing, and it's very much his idiosyncrasy. i guess there's a continuity there in belew.

i mean, we all have influences. i don't deny that byrne probably was one on annie. she's definitely electro-pop in the broad sense that runs from lundgren through to bowie, byrne, anderson, reznor and beyond. it's just the way the argument is being thrown out that is difficult to stomach.

rather, i hope byrne is able to take something away from his time working with annie.

BubbaZen10
Oh, i have no doubt she has reinvigorated him!

The fact you knew who the Cabs were gets you many internet points!

William Sanders
You're too emotionally biased in your assessments, that's why you say so many absurd things. I have no time for that. 

BubbaZen10
Absurd things said are like, MY FAVORITE THINGS!!

I have no time for the too serious shit myself.

I have time koala killer, or whatever the fuck your name is, but make it quick, i have an appointment at 3. TICK TOCK!

deathtokoalas
that was the perfectly sexist remark, william. i'm sort of proud of you, actually.

William Sanders
Of course it was, everything is to you. 

BubbaZen10 
Ok, how much more will you put into this? How far will you push a feminist?

She's made valid points. Anyone who says this chick is riding on Byrne's coattails needs to look into her more. This is one very talented person, and Koalahater might be right that it's actually HIM riding HER coattails at this point.

deathtokoalas
i missed a couple of posts.

i actually think her playing is really underrated. i don't want to do this "on par with" thing. i'm going to state though that i'm an abstract guitarist myself (i have some stuff up on my page if you'd like to click through), and it's a big part of my interest in st. vincent's work. she has progressive streaks, but she's more in a post-punk tradition, and that generally means toning done the excesses. but she did go to berkeley, and her instrument was guitar, and it does come out fairly clearly. she runs off her riffs in a kind of effortless, not flashy way, though - which is definitely not "belewish". she's kind of more of a blues/metal guitarist by instinct. i know that sounds bizarre initially, but if you deconstruct it carefully it comes out pretty clearly. that's more in the sabbath or maiden side of things.

in a broad sense, though, her effects heavy approach has it's origins in the belew and fripp school of guitar. it sounds to me like it's been through a few steps on the way there. there's one specific thing she does often that is very belew and it's this kind of glissando trick through heavy distortion. it's leaning towards the kind of effects belew is known for. and, it comes out in a stylistic sense as well: belew was the guitarist on a lot of the music that preceded this and sounds similar to it: bowie, talking heads, laurie anderson, nine inch nails. and, yeah, a bit of crimson, too. when we're talking about byrne specifically? it's a comparison that's hard to ignore, given how much belew added to byrne's work.

it does sort of intersect with the sexism, though. it's still a little unsettling to see an attractive woman play like annie does. as much as i might like carrie brownstein, and as many heads as pj harvey may have turned, that level of playing wasn't really there. in the end, i think normalizing female shredding is something that's going to be a part of her legacy. there's a  clip from a few years ago where she runs off the riffs to surgeon that's worth watching and demonstrates what i'm getting at. as much as it's distracting from the music, and as much as she's clearly trying to avoid that, i'm not aware of any kind of precedent.


i lost my own train of thought, though. by "upgrade", i meant in terms of general musicality and depth of musical knowledge. there's no use in comparing them directly and ranking one higher than the other. there's a similarity in the way they approach the instrument, but they're pretty different in terms of writing.

part of me does kind of want to hear her do a really flashy guitar record, though.

William Sanders
I thought I was done, people keep bringing me back in. Saying Clark is riding Byrne's coattails is absurd, just as saying Byrne basically hired Clark as the songwriter for their collaboration is absurd, or insinuating that Byrne can't create melodies with horns based on nothing more than a gut-induced hunch is absurd. We can celebrate both artists without shitting on one of them, koalas should give it a try. 

deathtokoalas
byrne was involved with some interesting records in the 80s, but he doesn't deserve a lot of credit for them - as bowie doesn't deserve much credit for the second half of low (he wasn't even in the recording studio when it was created) and neither mccartney nor lennon can really honestly take credit for george martin's work. it would be time consuming to develop this argument here, but people that are familiar with the other works of eno, belew, harrison and weymouth can hear where the genius really originated

augusts1
You should brush up on Byrne's discography. He composed the  score for Twyla Tharp's ballet 'The Catherine Wheel' in '81 & a classical instrumental album called 'The Forest' in '91(both of which I own). He also collaborated w/Ryuichi Sakamoto for the amazing soundtrack to Bertolucci's The Last Emperor in '87. And those 3 are just the tip of the iceberg for his creations apart from his regular albums. He's done plenty of other film work too.

So your assertion that Byrne is a hack & using Clark for his own sexist gain since he has no talent of his own holds no water. at. all. Btw, check his Wiki page to find more of his work referenced there. And I'm a recent convert to Clark mainly because of her involvement w/Byrne.

deathtokoalas
again, if you look at the credits on those records, and you listen to the other work by the artists that did most of the work, it's easy to hear that byrne was not responsible for very much of the interesting components. guitar, vocals & the odd simplistic fill on another instrument. the rest of it is handled by the production teams, which (like bowie) he had a bit of an ear for.

well, and the gigolo dancing. byrne is EXCELLENT at gigolo dancing...

LicoriceLain
Or maybe they simply have very similar musical sensibilities...

grubbymanz
idk i think she is really influenced by byrne and could not say who really arranged what. if you listen to an album like feelings like maybe wicked little doll, and some of the other more synth funky things there is nothing on their collab album that couldn't have been on that album, before she was even putting out music. Also her neurotic pop thing, i bet she was really influenced by byrne and t heads and would not be so quick to consider arrangements on their joint album to be hers based on her recent output,when her style is informed so much by the person she was collaborating with.