MENU

Not Just “Controversial” Views—Forbidden Views

By Walter Donway

September 27, 2023

SUBSCRIBE TO SAVVY STREET (It's Free)

The Anathematizing of Jann Wenner

 

For more than 350 years (1600–1966), the Church of Rome maintained a list of books that Catholics worldwide were forbidden to publish or to read. The Index Librorum Prohibitorum by 1948 listed more than 4,000 books, including, for example, virtually every serious book that appeared during the 18th century Age of Enlightenment, arguably philosophy’s greatest century. No new books were added after 1948 and in 1966 Pope Paul VI discontinued (“suppressed”) it.

This was not “censorship,” which is government regulation of what can be published, sometimes determined by a required advance review by censors, sometimes by penalties (public book burning, exile, imprisonment, execution) after publication. Instead, the Vatican by essentially private means (early on it did bring to bear the secular powers, when available) was conducting a worldwide ideologically and morally motivated and enforced boycott. (Thus, I focus on the Vatican only because it was not engaged in “censorship.”)

Increasingly, there is a culture of intimidating and punishing anyone who publicly states a view contrary to the politically correct view of the minimal acceptable righteousness.

That is what we have today in America. There is no government censorship—not legislated and bureaucratically implemented censorship, but social media companies have been pressured, as the facts in the First Amendment lawsuit against the Biden Administration demonstrate. Increasingly, there is a culture of intimidating and punishing anyone who publicly states a view contrary to the politically correct, the “woke,” the left-liberal postmodernist establishment’s view of the minimal acceptable righteousness. Although the media and higher education are the chief formulators of what is intolerable, their dictates are carried out by virtually all sectors from business to science, sports to entertainment, arts to philanthropy.

The most recent enforcement action, intended to bring the cofounder of Rolling Stone and the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, Jann S. Wenner, to heel illustrates how the system works.

The most recent enforcement action, intended to bring the cofounder of Rolling Stone and the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, Jann S. Wenner, to heel, raises more questions than it answers—but it illustrates how the system works. (If anyone who reads a newspaper or watches TV “news” and opinion does not already know.)

The newest book by Wenner, already a best-selling author, is The Masters: Conversations with Bono, Dylan, Garcia, Jagger, Lennon, Springsteen, Townsend (Little Brown and Co., Sept. 2023). Wenner is perhaps uniquely qualified to create this book, having cofounded Rolling Stone in 1967 and served as editor/editorial director until 2019, some half-century, and having cofounded the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame (1986). As editor, he conducted interviews with what amounts to the entire founding generation(s) of rock and roll musicians—interviews viewed as historic documents. Testimonials to The Masters indicate that legends of this musical genre, including Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen, granted Wenner interviews of a depth and personal nature for which they would trust no one else. Wenner was also known for his broader approach to culture and willingness to publish controversial investigative reports.

On Friday, September 15, 2023, an interview with Wenner appeared in the New York Times. Much was discussed, but one question invited Wenner into the world of woke firestorms and PC vigilantes: Why, among the seven “masters” included in your book—this was out of thousands (Rolling Stone last year, not on Wenner’s watch, published a list of the 500 “Greatest Albums of All Time”)—are there no Blacks and no women?

It appears initially as if Wenner (and his publisher) were not acutely aware of this high-explosives minefield. He answered the question as though he really thought it was simply seeking information on the standard he conceived for a “master.” His answer:

“It’s not that they’re inarticulate, although, go have a deep conversation with Grace Slick or Janis Joplin. Please, be my guest. You know, Joni (Mitchell) was not a philosopher of rock and roll. She didn’t, in my mind, meet that test.

“Of Black artists—you know, Stevie Wonder, genius, right? I suppose when you use a word as broad as ‘masters,’ the fault is using that word. Maybe Marvin Gaye, or Curtis Mayfield? I mean, they just didn’t articulate at that level.”

The phrases “meet that test” and “at that level” reveal what is happening. Wenner had written a book about “masters”—not just good, not just excellent, not just beloved musicians. Wenner in this book, this one book, at this time, summing up his experience over half a century in this field with its artists, was formulating a standard of the epitome of mastery.

The interview does suggest, a bit later, that he may have considered the need to show how his standard of mastery applied in the case of Blacks and women—for the sake of political correctness, to head off the vigilantes. He said:

“Just for public relations sake [i.e., political correctness] maybe I should have gone and found one Black and one woman artist to include here that didn’t measure up to that same historical standard, just to avert this kind of criticism.”

But he did not. His goal apparently was to define a standard and present literally a handful of individuals who “meet that test,” measured up to his “historical standard” of unexcelled mastery in this field.

But, Jann Wenner, you just can’t do that. Talk of artistry, mastery, a historical standard, but nothing trumps the moral imperative, the doctrinal absolute, of racial and sexual inclusiveness. You cannot ever leave it out and expect to escape “banned person,” “banned idea,” and “banned book” anathema.

The reaction was instantaneous according to the AP story (to take but one example), which said that Wenner “created a firestorm.” No, he did not create the firestorm; he wrote and published a book and answered a question about the standards he applied to his concept of “mastery” of rock and roll. The “firestorm” was created by the storm troopers, the forces of wokeness, the vigilantes of PC.

The story reported that a day after the interview in the New York Times, with his “controversial” views, Wenner had “been removed from the [Rock & Roll] hall’s board of directors after making comments that were seen as disparaging toward Black and female musicians.”

No, not “controversial” views—that means open to discussion, debate. The correct term is “banned” views.

When the Index Librorum Prohibitorum reached its stride, in the 18th century, few French philosophes or British philosophers said everything that they believed and said it in the language they had in mind because of the threat of being banned or worse. Scottish philosopher David Hume’s friends and publishers implored him not to publish Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion during his lifetime. He didn’t, but it availed him not; all his books ended up on the Index. As did those of John Locke, Francis Bacon, John Milton, Rene Descartes, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Maimonides, Immanuel Kant…. Although all to one degree or another tailored their truth in deference to the sacred.

Today, anyone in the public eye—and cases come along almost weekly, now—runs for cover when the firestorm of political correctness flares, when he or she is declared heretical. It took Wenner only one day before he said, through his publisher:

“I totally understand the inflammatory nature and badly chosen words and deeply apologize and accept the consequences.”

He does not say he is wrong. And the media already said that his remarks were inflammatory (the “firestorm”). He could have said (this is right off the top of my head, not Wenner’s): Oh, I am absolutely aware of the historic talent and greatness of our Black and female musicians. Here, I was including in my concept of “master” name recognition, which has tended, of course, to be overwhelmingly attached to white, male performers. My next book, if I live to write it, will highlight the contributions of our Black, female, gay, transgender, disabled, and underrepresented musical geniuses.”

Would artists at the rarefied level of Dylan and Springsteen have granted an exception—their only exception, they seem to suggest—for an interviewer with that mentality?

We can achieve that degree of conformity if few bother to stand up for Wenner—and I predict that few will do so.

Come on, what would be the harm? Except that it dispenses with integrity, creates a dense hairball of half-truths and bullshit, condescends to Blacks and women by implying that a special project is needed to “include” them, and reinforces obeisance to the sacred dogmas of political correctness.

We can achieve that degree of conformity if few bother to stand up for Wenner—and I predict that few will do so. We can ensure that there is a righteous realm of the politically correct—a secular Nicene Creed—that one contradicts on penalty of excommunication.

We are almost there.

 

 

 

(Visited 224 times, 1 visits today)