"Mad Men" and false nostalgia

Rod, your essay is terrific. Great insights at several levels.

Watching "Mad Men" always makes me feel sad. Sad for the characters, of course, but also because it holds up a mirror to our culture of consumerism and to an economy that has been built on "manufactured demand." Advertising has been a key to that

Rod asks: "How do you unlearn the habits of the individualistic heart?"

The one and only answer, of course. is Christ. Prayerfully, daily, painfully, we all must struggle to "put on Christ."

... self-indulgent Boomer sentimentality...

I don't get it. "Mad Men" *isn't about boomers,* except perhaps the very youngest adult characters (and that's a stretch.)

"Mad Men" is good, too, because it gives the lie to the "wonderful, moralitic" fifties / early sixties, before that "evil sexual revolution ruined it all." The "office party" episode is a case in point. The women were virtual sexual "serfs" for the men (another good example - the Billy Wilder movie "The Apartment.") Sexual hijinks were fine as long as the girl was popping out of a cake, or bending over the boss's desk - out of sight, out of mind.

Rod, The most potent and destructive fantasies advertisers market are the related convictions that the self knows itself through its individual choices, and that it can reach fulfillment by choosing to purchase particular things or experiences.

TV itself - the ultimate "push" media - is the message here, and TV shows like Mad Men are themselves destructive fantasies, feeding the ego and more base emotional instincts. The irony here is the producers of this show have you pegged.

Conservatives, though, appreciate the fullness of "Mad Men"'s American tragedy, because we know what's really coming next.

The true American tragedy is that real people have bought into the TV media community and checked out of the real one. A little TV is like a little porn; soon, it effects the way one thinks about things, plus takes what little free time me have without us knowing it. From 1965 to 1995 we gained an average of six hours a week in added leisure time...and we spent them watching TV, allowing no time for family or community anymore. Manufacturing fantasy, indeed - it's better than real life!

It's not the promised land, but rather a wasteland, a desert of dislocation and despair in which we've been wandering for over 40 years.

Yep. Another thing I've noticed: sermons and essays are pulling more and more from TV every year. It's exponential growth, and there is a good reason for it: TV is one of the few shared experiences Americans have left (besides raw consumption of national products, especially processed food). It's where we get our creative ideas, where we do our thinking, where we find unity with our fellow man, where we learn the rules. It's where we live.

Stefanie: I don't get it. "Mad Men" *isn't about boomers,* except perhaps the very youngest adult characters (and that's a stretch.)

But that's the metacritique of the show, at least from the Right (e.g., Michael Brendan Dougherty's piece in Culture11). That it's a Hollywood fantasy showing how awful the Fifties were, and why the Boomer rebellion that emerged out of the Sixties was justified. You know, having to exaggerate the failures of the ancien regime to justify the crimes of the revolution.

But as Rufus says, amplifying or rather clarifying my point in the piece, the decadence of the Sixties had already set in; the only thing the "Mad Men" set had over the Boomers yet to come were better clothes and manners.

Mdavid: TV shows like Mad Men are themselves destructive fantasies, feeding the ego and more base emotional instincts. The irony here is the producers of this show have you pegged.

In what sense? If you're going to argue that all TV is immoral no matter what, and that it is impossible ever to watch anything on TV -- which, I suppose, is what you're arguing when you compare television to porn -- then I don't know that you have anything all that useful to say here. Aside from the news, "Mad Men" is the only show on TV we watch, and my wife and I do so after the kids are in bed. Forty-five minutes a week, that's it. It's very high quality drama. So is "Masterpiece Theater." I see nothing intrinsically wrong with adding televised programming to one's life, so long as it doesn't dominate one's free time. "Mad Men" is, to my way of thinking, a rather engaging exercise in understanding culture, morals and the sociology of our time. Nothing to apologize for in watching it.

"The only thing the 'Mad Men' set had over the Boomers yet to come were better clothes and manners."

Don't underestimate the power and value of good clothes and manners!

When I first saw the ads, I could see the territory the show was headed for: a darker version of Quantum Leap. Gene Healy had the best quote:

"It seems as though every. single. scene. is designed to reinforce the point that the past is another country, and one we ought to bomb."

I usually refrain from Boomer-bashing because it's not like Gen-X has a lot to brag about, but it is weird watching this anti-nostalgia in action. If you can say one thing about Boomers as a generation, it's that they have an outsize inferiority complex that can only be salved by trashing their parents.

"I don't watch TV. It's a cultural wasteland filled with inappropriate metaphors depicting an unrealistic portrayal of life created by the liberal media elite." -- From "Babylon 5"

I think that's a very superficial reading of the program. Have you watched any of it, Derek? I'm not asking to be snarky.

I watched a couple of scenes, and they fit Healy's descriptions and what I anticipated.

Then again, I also chafed against the standard conservative critique of "Pleasantville," which most on the right read as a simplistic trashing of the 1950s. I think the truer meaning of that film was as a cautionary tale against the idea of Utopia. The message of that film is that you cannot separate the joy from freedom, and freedom is messy, and disordered, and requires the possibility of pain.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, Rod, and Pleasantville was a simplistic trashing of the 50s. It wasn't about denouncing Utopia, it was presenting you with a dystopia, an unrealistic, insulting dystopia. It's a tiresome refrain in a lot Boomer works, where every awful little thing about the past is dug up and magnified beyond reality. So much so at times, you'd think the 50s were some sort of American equivalent to the 30 Years War. Think of the mindset that's compelled to do that. I don't remember movies in the 50s trashing the 30s generation or even previous ones. Yes, you have some critical films, but nothing with vicious condescension you have to put up with these days.

In a way, you can't blame the poor saps: look at what that generation did:
1. Fought WWII, Korea and established a strategy for winning the Cold War.
2. Created the greatest manufacturing economy ever, that allowed families to exist comfortably on ONE blue-collar income.
3. Put men on the moon.
4. Actually passed the Civil Rights legislation so many Boomers falsely take credit for.

What can the Boomers offer in response? Woodstock and some bitchin' movies. (And, yes, us Gen-Xers are less accomplished, so there it is.

To be sure, there are plenty of good criticisms of the fifties. Chronicles magazine had an issue dedicated to criticizing the decade, and it has the most disturbing cover art, too.

I said 'more like'. Not so much that their lives were realistic...

But that they were adults IN that time.

Some of the nostalgia, in other words, isn't so much about the times, but the age the person was during the time, as well.

"Surely conservatives don't want to be in the position of defending a social order that degraded women, subordinated blacks, marginalized Jews and shamed homosexuals into invisibility."

Uh, I'm not so sure about that, especially the last one, if those actions are what it took/takes to maintain a certain power structure. Actually, many of today's conservatives ARE in the position of defending just such a social order and its natural outcomes.

Reganite, I'll have to disagree on the "The one and only answer, of course. is Christ."

Your point is completely valid as His life is a firm option to inspire, but it certainly is not the only one. Religion, or rather spiritual understanding, in general can provide some very powerful motivators to expanding one's self; but don't count out the rest of human understanding. On can break such behaviors through internal reflection not necessarily from spiritual guidance. It is my personal belief that we have a natural tendency to gravitate towards the cornerstones of moralistic principles which are typically attributed here in the west to Christianity.

Look across the globe and you'll see many civilizations developed with similar tennants to virtue. Buddhism, Brahmanism, Islam, etc. all share some very fundamental guidelines on how one should live and cultivate body, mind, and spirit. But beyond religion, I'll admit the area is gray when arguing how religion may or may not have affected non-religious people in positive ways. Such as a grown person who was raised catholic but does not identify with Catholicism may still carry the virtues taught at a very young age. Would she or he have gotten that education without the catholic influence? What if it was the influence of a different religion or spiritual philosophy, would there be major fundamental differences?

I think the recent economic difficulties may have some positive impact on humanity (read: western civ.) as people increasingly look for satisfaction beyond typical consumerism. What I've noticed in my community is some people learning that they get a lot more out of helping neighbors put a roof on a garage or volunteering at a homeless shelter than they would simply providing economic support for such things. Does religion typically embrace these ideals and offer a catalyst for charity and success? Of course.

It's certainly difficult and sometimes necessary to live a depressed existence (young children in certain situations); but I don't see any reason to maintain the status-quo simply to save face. Furthermore it doesn't mean you have to consent to it. Do what you think will make you happy. You have to at least give it a shot. As a financial conservative politically, I have a difficult time understanding why some social cons fear social change. It's completely inevitable and I don't think the (recent) expanse of socially acceptable perversions stems from a tendency toward "liberal" social acceptance. I think it's more fundamentally a lack of voluntary education on many levels and a lack of personal accountability. Many people never bother to learn that lesson. You can't be responsible for people who refuse to help themselves. The Christ knew that, the Bodhisattva's knew that.

Just my opinion.