This week's Radio National's All in the mind is all about "Shadenfreude", the pleasure we take from the misfortune of others. At least it was one person, John Portmann's perspective of such pleasure. He has written a book about the concept called "When bad things happen to other people". Here is a review of the book from Salon.com.

On the basis of what John Portmann was saying on RN, he conveyed Shadenfreude as a benign or passive expression of this pleasure. So it seems he he understates the significance of this concept to an almost dangerous degree. To explain the concept he uses everyday examples such as stand-up comedy or the pleasure associated with the punishment of a convicted criminal. He also argues that this Shadenfreude underlies aspects of our sense of humour and without this perverse pleasure our sense of fun would be lost.

But these examples are one end of the spectrum and perhaps with a little thought, betray the insidious nature of Shadenfreude. However passive, a person's pleasure in the demise of a few Palestinians, Jews, Americans or Asians, could also be viewed as Shadenfreude and not only the nasty expression of racism. It could also hide an unhealthy hubris or even a sense of bigotted nationalism. It could be viewed that we express pleasure in the demise of another nation, because we believe our own nation to be the greatest and therefore the downfall of another nation only helps to reinforce our delusion and protect our narrow view of the world.

John Portmann also raises aspects of competitive sport as a manifestation of Shadenfreude. Competitive sport is seen to be a healthy activity in our society but could also be seen to be quite destructive. Amateurism and it's virtues, are slowly disappearing from the sports ground. We are moving toward the end of the spectrum where we don't value the efforts of the individual because of their commitment and integrity, only when they win. It's almost as though when they lose we also lose and feel this sense of failure in ourselves. When we win, we celebrate our superiority and part of that celebration is to feel pleasure at the loss of the oppostion, a pleasure that may be more than just our win. Now this is a rather severe interpretation but I think serves to show the extent to which Shadenfreude, when unquestioned, can undermine seemingly goodnatured competition.

If Shadenfreude is a guilty pleasure, as Natasha Mitchell ( All in the Mind presenter ) states, I think there is a reason for this guilt. Shadenfreude can belie a lack of understanding, intolerance and an unpreparedness to develop empathy for those around us. It's mere acceptance as a benign and passive manifestation is one more step towards the ugliest spectral end of the expression of humanity.

Ofcourse none of us are free of Shadenfreude. By example, I live on an the corner of a T-intersection. There is a sweeping slip lane which appears to be great for "hoons" to scream around the corner. Well actually Townsville appears to be hoon-central and so often people will sit at the lights of the intersection, revving their engines and attempting to make as much noise as possible as they round the corner. Particularly our friends of the Harley-Davidson persuasion. Now as they sit there inflicting their contempt for anybody with intact hearing on anyone within a radius of ten kilometres, I sit there thinking about the pleasure I'd get out of their motorcycles sliding out from under them transfiguring them into bloody pulpy masses as they grind along the hard gritty ashphalt. As I sit there thinking of the pleasure of shoving a hoon's noise amplifying muffler up their respective arse, I take a step back. Why does this transient annoyance develop such thoughts of Shadenfreude? A sense of justice? Sure justice as far as I'm concerned but as for the society as a whole aren't I denying them their identity? The way they see themselves? Perhaps they need to exert this tangible influence on their world so they feel they can have some impact upon it, out of the frustration of their impotence and disenfranchisement by the power-brokers in society. This is one view ofcourse but perhaps even if it is a misinterpretation, it's a step towards empathy in opposition to intolerance.

It isn't good enough to recognise the pleasure and think "Oh that's okay, it's just Shadenfreude", it is necessary to question it. John Portmann's view of the benign nature of Shadenfreude trivialises that pleasure's insidious nature and it is right to be suspicious of it.

I heard about Mike Moore's lastest effort: Bowling for Columbine (2003) on RN tonight. Apparently it has been threatened with censorship by the local authorities. It considers the responsibility of America's society with respect to levels of violence and gun laws. Did I hear the whisper of freedom of speech??? Must have imagined it....

I haven't heard many, who aren't self-interested, arguing against Mike Moore's view of the world. One of the few I have heard was Terry Lane from RN, when reviewing the book Mike Moore's new book, "Stupid White Men". Terry raised the point that the world's evils are not wholly caused by the white man, even if a large proportion of them. I think Terry's point was, power has the potential to corrupt, no matter who wields it, and that simply labelling one group as the root of all evil doesn't actually address the real problem, or indeed effect a solution. The other point to be made was that not all white men are bad, many being a victim of other white men. So Terry's main objections were that Mike Moore didn't appear to acknowledge these points of "power corrupts" and "some isn't all", in the book. I guess it's hard to exemplify otherwise since it just so happens that white men wield a lot of the power, particularly in the US.

p.s. the same could probably be applied to white women too.

The Australian actress Ruth Cracknell died a couple of days ago. A great loss in so many ways but I'm not going to sing her praises as she deserves and as so many have. One of her most celebrated works was a series called "Mother and Son". Ruth plays a slowly dementing widow who is cared for by her son. This programme was well ahead of its time in considering the "burden" of dementia for the sufferer and their carers. While being quite acrid it displayed such pathos and comedy in many ways. And I wasn't surprised one bit when I heard (Radio National) that one of the executive producers was John O'Grady, an acute observer of society. John O'Grady or rather his pseudonym, Nino Culotta wrote a book called "They're a weird mob" in which he depicted a tale of an Italian's emigration to Australia.

Here's one good description of the book:

"The great success of John O'Grady's They're a Weird
Mob(1957), and other similar volumes, was a timely response to the national
policy of assimilation and 'naturalisation'. While the 'Nino Culotta'
novels celebrate the idiosyncratic and the humorous aspects of Australian
language and customs, they nevertheless declare it to be 'natural' and the
immigrant culture to be foreign and 'other' as they valorise the valiant
(and good-natured) attempt of the hero to 'make himself' Australian."

- http://adt.library.uq.edu.au/uploads/approved/adt-QU2000.0003/public/chapter6.PDF

Unfortunately when we were asked to read it in Grade 5, I don't think I had to insight to realise the perceptive cultural observations, as well as cringe, and their impact on my society. He captured an essence of Australian-ness in many ways.
Here's an excerpt

It's a classic. It's on the booklist for one Australian studies course in Hungary which only adds credence to its relevance.

Ciao Ruth..

Another RN program, this one Late Night Live with Phillip Adams.

It was entitled "Media Overload: global attention deficit disorder." and the transcript should be available tomorrow at the Late Night Live site. In a nutshell it was about the impact of the media, in particular its medium, upon society. You know, the kind of stuff sociologists and the like get their PhD's in so they can profess to be qualified to judge society and therefore score their big break on TV.

Anyway, the interesting point was the quote they used to introduce the program,
"the medium is the message". It was apparently coined by Marshall Mcluhan, in the 60s, contained in his book "Understanding media: The Extensions of Man".
From my understanding, the phrase intends to remind us that in using any media, it is not enough just to appreciate the content but we must realise and consider the context and impact that the medium has on the communication and understanding of the content. This is a middle of the road view compared to McLuhan's actual message as suggested in "Mcluhan's Message Clarified", who states that it is all media. In a way he is right but the important thing should surely be the content i.e. the original thought that the media carried.

As an aside, arguably there are concepts and thoughts that trascend all time. These are probably similar to what are called the "Great Ideas" by the Great Books of the Western World guys at the University of Chicago. Would that suggest that these concepts also have the same truth or meaning no matter what the medium?

Anyway, the impact of the media should not be forgotten seems to be the main message and whether or not a certain media is ultimately the best way to deliver a certain message. One of the most applicable media is the web ofcourse, where people spend so much time making the medium do what they want, that it ceases to become content driven. This is the challenge of the ultimate web log software, as I see. To be able to allow input of content purely for the communication of the content and not get caught up in the technical side.

I should read the Mcluhan book. Another one to add to the list.

Listening to Radio National, heard about a report recently published attacking American dissent within the US university system, particularly academics who criticise the S-11 response. While justifying the report's existence by saying that it has the right to reply against the dissenters, it publishes the institutions and names of academics who have dissented (Read the Transcript ) . I don't like to use the word hypocrisy, but it does seem rather short-sighted to produce a report attacking the very application of freedom of speech, while using this principle to support its own publication. There's probably more to say, but it's best if you just read links.

You can access the actual report in pdf format here:
Defending Civilisation: How our Universities are Failing America and What Can be Done About It