Light On Dark Water

“The Triumph of Drivel”

I don’t know anything about Canadian politics or the real significance of the newly-elected premier. But this piece by David Warren says some insightful things that are as applicable to our political culture as to our neighbor’s.

Perhaps I should explain what I mean by “drivel.” I could write, “lies,” but these are only possible to those who have criteria for the truth. Drivel is what people talk who have no such criteria. “Bullshit” is the interchangeable term. The fact that what they’re saying may be true, or untrue, is of no significance to them. It is enough that it sounds plausible. The truthful man knows when he is lying; the post-modern neither knows nor cares. He can believe himself “good,” as drivellers will do, because truth doesn’t come into it.

The old-style politician told knowing lies. The new-style politician does not know what “lies” are. He uses the term rhetorically, against anything he does not want to hear. The old-style politician would back down when confronted with the truth. The new-style politician does not know what you are talking about. He assumes you are only trash-talking him.

 

Maclin Horton
,

48 responses to ““The Triumph of Drivel””

  1. Janet

    Yep.

    Reply
  2. Mac

    Hillary.

    Reply
  3. Janet

    No doubt.

    Reply
  4. Craig

    Interesting that you stumbled upon David Warren. He was for many years a columnist for the Ottawa Citizen, and one of the relatively few “conservative” voices in the Canadian press. He had an oblique way of writing about politics, a stylistic trait that is even more pronounced on his blog.
    I confess I didn’t pay a great deal of attention to our election this time around. The upshot is that our Progressive Conservative party was ousted and the Liberal party takes the wheel. Our new Prime Minister is Justin Trudeau — not to be confused with Justin Bieber. He is the son of Pierre Trudeau, one of the most beloved (or reviled, depending on what part of the country you live in) Prime Ministers in Canadian history. So now we have a political dynasty just like our American friends.
    Justin Trudeau commenced his leadership of the Liberal party by declaring that pro-lifers would no longer be admitted as candidates. Among his election promises are to legalize (not just decriminalize) the sale of marijuana. He wants to set up a national subsidized daycare system (which, naturally, stay-at-home parents will pay for but not use). It’s going to be a long four years — or more.

    Reply
  5. Craig

    And, to pick up on the “bullshit” theme, there’s a hilarious exchange in the Letters section of the November issue of First Things, if you can lay hands on it. Sometimes grumpiness spins comic gold.

    Reply
  6. Mac

    I had run across things by Warren occasionally before now. This one was a link in a comment on this post at Neo-neocon.
    Congratulations on catching up with us (though I know you’ve long been ahead in some ways). Those old Anglo-American ideals of ordered liberty and self-governance are being discarded. A majority of the citizenry just don’t care about those things anymore.
    I don’t subscribe to FT. Not even sure I can get it in one of the libraries around here, the way they’ve been cutting back on print subscriptions.

    Reply
  7. Craig

    That’s a pity; I think you’d enjoy this bit.

    Reply
  8. Marianne

    Craig,
    Are you referring to a reader’s objections to someone’s use of the word “bullshit” in an article and then the writer’s reply? If so, that exchange is in the October issue, and I was able to access the electronic version of it through the local university library.
    Would it be copyright infringement if I did a copy & paste of the text here?

    Reply
  9. Grumpy

    I will ask ghem in the office if its ok

    Reply
  10. Janet

    Well, that’s online here: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2015/10/letters
    AMDG

    Reply
  11. Janet

    But it’s not an exchange, so I don’t think it’s what Craig was talking about.
    AMDG

    Reply
  12. Mac

    I have a defiantly old-fashioned, even consciously reactionary, attitude about words like “bullshit.” Sticking with the old taboos is my little act of defiance toward a sick culture. But that word in particular is a problem, because I don’t know of any precise equivalent for it. “Drivel” isn’t truly a synonym, although there’s certainly plenty of that around, or at least I don’t think of them as meaning exactly the same thing. “Jive” is closer. I think of “drivel” as being mainly just stupid, while “bullshit” is a deliberate attempt to obscure the truth, but less straightforward than an outright lie. As Warren says, one component of it is a deep indifference toward truth and falsehood. Is it possible that bullshit is a modern phenomenon?
    A similarly problematic word: “asshole”, as in “He’s just an asshole.” I would be grateful if anyone can supply with an alternative that carries the same connotation of deliberate and defiant unpleasantness.

    Reply
  13. Janet

    Right. I hate those words, but I know what you mean.
    About the latter, once my mother gave me Prince of the Tides to read. She loved it. I didn’t, but I kept reading because she wanted me to read it, and I thought I might find something there eventually. That word is ubiquitous in the book.
    One day I was driving my daughter some place. I guess she was about 11, and had probably never heard any word like that pass my lips. Another driver drove me off the road and I yelled, “You a******!” I wish you could have seen the look on her face–and on mine!
    That’s when I quit reading the book.
    AMDG

    Reply
  14. Mac

    Heh. I noticed something similar when we were watching The Wire.

    Reply
  15. Janet

    Well yeah. There was only one word that I could understand in the wire.
    AMDG

    Reply
  16. grumpy in Manhattan

    I think people’s body parts are sacred, and should not be used as cuss words. The sexual act is sacred and should not be used as a cuss word. Bullshit is not sacred. There’s nothing wrong with using it, though the notre dame professor in question is clearly not a lady!
    If you have been to Mass today, you heard Paul say his past life was ‘rubbish’ or some such (Philippians 3). One translation of the Greek word is ‘dung’. Years ago I heard a postmodernist professor at a conference expressing sharp annoyance about the fact that Paul referred to the Jewish law as ‘shit’. Her word, but its not a complete mistranslation, necessarily.

    Reply
  17. Janet

    It’s not that I think it’s wrong; it’s that I think it’s gross.
    AMDG

    Reply
  18. Art Deco

    I’ve read David Warren intermittently for some time (IIRC, he use to publish in Crisis) and respect his writings.
    The advent of figures as vapid as Barack Obama and Justin Trudeau are indicative of an essential unseriousness in North American electorates, in a way the popularity of Donald Trump is not. Trump is obnoxious and vulgar – but also capable and accomplished. Obama and Trudeau are dilettentes.

    Reply
  19. Mac

    I don’t know about Trudeau, but I can’t see Trump as a more serious candidate than Obama. It’s true that he has accomplishments outside politics, but he demonstrates his political superficiality (to be kind) almost every time he opens his mouth.

    Reply
  20. Marianne

    What David Warren wrote made me think of the conservation Obama had with Marilynne Robinson a month or so ago. In the course of the conversation, he said two astonishing things — astonishing to me because I’ve followed his presidency pretty closely; here they are:

    “I’m always trying to push a little more optimism.”
    “…part of my connection to your books, I think, is an appreciation for—without romanticizing Middle America or small-town America—that sense of homespun virtues. And that comes out in your writing. And it sometimes seems really foreign to popular culture today, which is all about celebrity and being loud and bragging and—…”

    As Warren said: “truth doesn’t come into it”.
    The full conservation is here.

    Reply
  21. Mac

    Right, Janet, it’s not a moral question, it’s just a question of taste. I prefer the old propriety, though obviously it’s a lost cause now. Also there is a more practical reason: when you use those words in every sentence, you have nothing left to express a higher level of anger or whatever it is. It’s like having the volume turned up all the way all the time–if you want to make it louder, you can’t. But “bullshit” is almost a case unto itself, because of the lack of an equivalent.
    I’ve heard that about Phillipians 3.

    Reply
  22. Louise

    “The Triumph of Drivel” – well that just says it all.

    Reply
  23. Louise

    “I have a defiantly old-fashioned, even consciously reactionary, attitude about words like “bullshit.” Sticking with the old taboos is my little act of defiance toward a sick culture. But that word in particular is a problem, because I don’t know of any precise equivalent for it.”
    I totally understand. I try not to use such words, but I sometimes do. And certainly if they are used it should be very sparingly, as you point out with the analogy to volume.
    Yes, definitely need some good substitutes for BS and A*hole.

    Reply
  24. Janet

    I’m thinking about Weston in Perelandra. It was the fact that he indulged in drivel that was so nerve-wracking for Ransom.
    AMDG

    Reply
  25. Marianne

    Just noticed that I flipped back and forth between “conservation” and “conversation” in my comment above. Embarrassing.

    Reply
  26. Louise

    “I think people’s body parts are sacred, and should not be used as cuss words. The sexual act is sacred and should not be used as a cuss word. Bullshit is not sacred.”
    I like that, Grumpy.

    Reply
  27. Janet

    I’m sure that if you hadn’t said that, Marianne, we wouldn’t have noticed.
    I keep seeing “Devil” instead of “Drivel.”
    AMDG

    Reply
  28. Mac

    I didn’t, either.
    Someone posted that Obama-Robinson piece on Facebook the other day and I couldn’t bring myself to read it.
    From Obama’s point of view, the optimism remark makes sense. He’s had pretty good success at marginalizing the reactionaries. But the small-town America stuff…oh come on…this is the “bitter clingers” guy.
    But then again it’s not that unusual for liberals to be sentimental about an imaginary small-town America while despising the actual one.

    Reply
  29. Craig

    So it is the October issue! It just arrived in our mailbox yesterday, so I assumed it was the November issue.
    Even granting that BS is only vulgar and not profane, I do not actually say it in real life. I figure there must be a better way to say pretty much anything, without descending to vulgarity.
    Yes, Art, David Warren did write for Crisis. I believe he also contributes regularly to The Catholic Thing.

    Reply
  30. Grumpy

    It is ok for you to publish the quotation from the ft letters

    Reply
  31. Grumpy

    About volume: my father used to say that when we came to America in 1963 id an engineer ssid ‘damn that nail’ he mewant he wanted that nail to spend an eternity in hellfire. This is lost if one says damn at every redlight, he said
    But People were cancelling their subscriptions and saying this is not fit for a christian magazine?
    The suthor of the ft piece is a fishwife but she is a christian, so far as I can tell

    Reply
  32. Marianne

    It is ok for you to publish the quotation from the ft letters
    Thanks. Here’s the complaining letter:

    I am writing to express my shock and disappointment at the profanity in the article “Freedom Within the Disciplines” (June/July). The word “bullshit” appears multiple times. I have encountered this word and its ilk in the New Yorker, Fast Company, and The Economist, but I didn’t expect to see you sink to such a community. I expect First Things to be a magazine of piety and civility, a publication I don’t mind our children and grandchildren leafing through. Now I find that I must read quickly through your issues to see if you are promoting language that is offensive to me and my family.
    I can’t understand the attitude toward your readers this article conveys. I can only promise that if you send me another issue including a profanity-laced article, I will immediately cancel my subscription and terminate all financial support.

    And here’s the author’s reply:

    I am very sorry to have shocked [the complainer’s] sensibility. I believe, however, that he is taking my language too literally. The word “bullshit” is used both literally and metaphorically. It should be noted that in this article I am using the word metaphorically and not literally. Following Harry Frankfurt’s seminal monograph On Bullshit, I was using the word “bullshit” to refer to speech that is used without concern for truth. The metaphorical meaning draws from the literal meaning in that “shit” has no nutritional value.
    Metaphorical “shit,” as in, “Are you shitting me?” is empty speech.
    It should be noted that neither the literal word “bullshit,” referring to the feces produced by a bull, nor the metaphorical term “bullshit” is a profanity. Profanity could only be said to occur when “shit” or “bullshit” is used as an expletive or expression of anger or anguish. “Bullshit” is not a profane term in and of itself. Its meaning varies depending on the context and the intention of the speaker. Only if used as an expletive, that is, used to express anguish or anger, could it be termed a profanity.
    Even in such a context, it is still debatable whether “bullshit” is a profanity per se or rather a vulgarity. It is vulgar to refer to the feces of bulls. But is it profane? The profane is the opposite of the sacred: Profanity is irreverence. One utters profanities when one speaks of sacred things with lack of reverence, for instance by the inappropriate use of words designating the marital act. Such words have religious connotations, because the object they designate is sacred. It desecrates the marital act to abuse the words for it. On the other hand, the feces of bulls is not sacred, and for that reason the use of the word for it as an expletive strikes me as vulgar rather than profane. Bullshit is commonly an object of disgust, and thus, to use the term as an expletive is to utter an obscenity. Its use as an expletive does not “profane” or desecrate anything of value. I respect Frechtling’s judgment and I apologize unequivocally for offending him or any of his family members.

    Reply
  33. Mac

    That’s great. The fishwife is correct, of course. “Profanity”?!

    Reply
  34. Art Deco

    I don’t know about Trudeau, but I can’t see Trump as a more serious candidate than Obama. It’s true that he has accomplishments outside politics, but he demonstrates his political superficiality (to be kind) almost every time he opens his mouth.
    Trudeau is a sometime high school drama teacher with a pair of unfinished degrees. He never held public office until about 7 years ago and has never held an executive position of any kind. His most salient issue is legalizing grass (which will cut down on the arrests of his mother). He’s about as lightweight as it gets.
    As for Trump, I would not mistake his bluster for something with semantic content. There is no telling what he’ll do; he’s signalling attitudes.

    Reply
  35. Janet

    I think of my friend Bill as the last gentleman. For instance, when we have them over for dinner, he sends a Thank You note–not an email, actual paper through the mail. When we were reading The Inferno aloud together and he came to the word which is the last half of BS, he stopped and said, “I can’t say that.” I don’t know that I know any other men that would have done that–maybe some women–probably I am one of those women.
    Anyway, I was thinking about this conversation this morning, and while I appreciate (really appreciate) Maclin’s adherence to the old order, there is also that scriptural admonition to think on things that are pure, honest and lovely. Words produce mental images and I just don’t want vulgar images in my head.
    That said, had I read that article, I doubt that that word would have caused the slightest blip on my radar.
    AMDG

    Reply
  36. Mac

    Ditto regarding the images, though in my usual second-guessing of myself I always wonder if I’m just being stuffy or something.
    I meant to express agreement with Grumpy’s father about the use of “damn” etc. One of the most memorable bouts of real cursing I ever heard came from my wife. This happened many years ago. She was making waffles and the batter kept sticking to this waffle iron she had that had never worked very well. After much frustration she kind of took a step back, glared at it, and let loose, quietly but very intensely, a string of words that clearly were intended as deadly force. You can’t do that if you use those words constantly.

    Reply
  37. Robert Gotcher

    I’m hardly a gentelman, but I just have never gotten into the habit of saying those kinds of words aloud. It just seems so vulgar and barbaric to me. I’ve probably used the F-word once in my adult life. The others S- A- I’ve used maybe two or three times. When these words do come out of my mouth, people really take notice.
    I do say them in my head, though.
    I once decided not to go to a movie because they had used the F- word to gain a PG13 rating.
    I’m probably a prig or something. I can’t help it without substantial effort and I don’t care to change my stripes at this point.
    It is not so bad reading it, but I prefer authors who can gain the effect without resorting to such language. Swift uses the S-word in one of his poems. It seemed appropriate for the context. He was making a sharp contrast between the “beauty” of a woman and the real state of her body. Can’t remember the name of the poem.

    Reply
  38. Janet

    Exactly. I had meant to say something about that and I’ve probably said it before. F*** used to be a really great, satisfying word to use about one a year when you were REALLY mad upset and maybe wanted someone else to know it. Now it is utterly useless. It has been completely drained of it’s force by people using it 3 or 4 times in the same sentence to say absolutely nothing.
    Another thing I’ve noticed about those words is that they are used constantly in movies in a way that is supposed to be funny and maybe shocking–but it’s not–it’s just boring. And I think the overuse of words like that in comedy may be related to the inability to be humorous about absolutely anything for fear of upsetting someone.
    AMDG

    Reply
  39. Janet

    Be stuffy, Maclin, embrace your inner stuffiness. And you, Robert, ditto with your inner priggishness. The stuffy and priggish of this world must unite.
    AMDG

    Reply
  40. Anne-Marie

    One reason this blog is the most civilized corner of the internet is the stuffiness and priggishness of the participants.
    My husband knows a philosopher who will walk away of a four-letter word is used in her presence. I would like to do the same, but I’m happy to say I hardly ever get the chance.

    Reply
  41. Louise

    “One of the most memorable bouts of real cursing I ever heard came from my wife.”
    Maclin, I remember you telling us this a few years back. It’s a great story which has stuck with me.

    Reply
  42. Louise

    “Another thing I’ve noticed about those words is that they are used constantly in movies in a way that is supposed to be funny and maybe shocking–but it’s not–it’s just boring.”
    Yes, it generally is. But there was this one great scene in the Australian movie “The Castle” which I would love to recommend to you (but can’t because it contains blasphemy) in which a lawyer is struggling with a photocopier and swears profusely. Only because of the context, I found this hilarious the first time.
    As for stuffy and priggish, well, I grew up with mild swearing, so a small amount doesn’t bother me, but I do understand that it bothers others and I definitely don’t like it in any real quantity. As you’ve all said, it ruins the effect anyhow. But the thing is, I’ve decided to embrace my inner “prude” for similar reasons. I don’t know how a real prude would cope in our society, so I just accept that people will see me as a prude for wanting a slightly better standard of dress and conduct than we now see. So, yes, I agree with Janet: embrace your inner priggishness and inner stuffiness.

    Reply
  43. Janet

    I saw The Castle a long time ago–very funny. I generally enjoy Australian movies, although I haven’t seen many.
    I haven’t foresworn movies with bad language.
    AMDG

    Reply
  44. Robert Gotcher

    “I haven’t foresworn movies with bad language.”
    Nor have I, but I am especially allergic to the F-bomb, esp. if it is sprinkled throughout.

    Reply
  45. Mac

    Thank you, Anne-Marie.
    I third Janet’s “Another thing I’ve noticed…”. Not only boring, but evidence of a very very tired and not at all daring desire to demonstrate authenticity, or indifference to convention, or something. News for you, film and tv people: that stuff is the convention, and a tired one it is. There are places where it makes sense–The Wire, for instance, which is about people who really talk that way. But too often it just seems thrown in. Though I guess there’s a feedback loop where the more people hear it in entertainment the more they use it in ordinary conversation.

    Reply
  46. Robert Gotcher

    “Though I guess there’s a feedback loop where the more people hear it in entertainment the more they use it in ordinary conversation.”
    That seems right. Children didn’t hear such language in public when I was a kid. Now it is heard all over no matter who is present.
    Even football players use it.

    Reply
  47. Louise

    I have forewsord movies with blasphemy – sadly very many.

    Reply
  48. Louise

    LOL! *foresworn

    Reply

Leave a reply to Craig Cancel reply

Instagram / TikTok / X

Designed with WordPress