This evening over dinner my friend Jon talked about the philosopher Jacques Rancière and his philosophy of the unspeakable. The essence is that in any particular society there are things that we do not and cannot talk about – they are literally unspeakable. These taboos limit our ability to discuss problems we might otherwise profitably discuss, such as the relations between rich and poor, parents and children, sexuality, domestic violence, and other topics that tear at the fabric of society.
This reminded me of my experience watching the 1983 Tony Scott film “The Hunger”. An early example of the now ubiquitous “glamorous vampire” genre, the film centered around a human/vampire romantic triangle, with the principals played by Catherine Deneuve, David Bowie and Susan Sarandon.
In movies there are things that happen not because they inherently make sense but because they need to happen, for reasons that have to do with plot advancement and character development. In the case of “The Hunger”, one such development centers around the character of Alice, played by the fourteen year old child actress Beth Ehlers. In the story, Alice is being groomed by the powerful vampire played by Deneuve to replace her current companion, played by Bowie, who is nearing the end of his useful lifetime and is beginning to rapidly age and degenerate.
As we learn about the ways of this film’s vampires, we discover that they indoctrinate their new minions through sexual seduction – the movie contains a number of erotic scenes centered around this concept. But this presents a problem – Alice is only fourteen. Rancière’s theory is quite applicable here. By definition, no American commercial film may contain an actual erotic encounter between an adult and a child. After all, the innocence of a young girl must be protected at all costs. Anything else would be, indeed, unspeakable.
The writers solve the dilemma in a simple and ingenious way. Bowie’s character, as part of his vampiric degeneration, is consumed by a powerful and uncontrollable hunger (hence the film’s title). Finding himself alone with the unsuspecting young Alice, he eats her.
Notice the simple brilliance of this plot twist. In order to protect this innocent child, to shield her from something as harmful as the pleasure of sexual awakening, the filmmakers opt to turn her into lunch. By being brutally murdered by a ravenous monster, horrifically butchered and summarily devoured, this young character is spared the unspeakable – enjoying a few moments of sexual pleasure on-screen.
You might not think that this makes logical sense. But as Rancière points out, when faced with any topic defined as “unspeakable” (in this case the threat of a potential sexual encounter between an adult woman and a fifteen year old girl), logic goes out the window. Perhaps it isn’t so surprising that our society has found no way to address some other uncomfortable topics, such as the plight of children guilty only of the unspeakable crime of being born into a poor American family.
first off, I enjoyed this. I haven’t thought about that movie in more than a decade… maybe two… but-
I’m curious… you mention the unspeakable crime of being born into a poor american family? I take offense to that. I was born into a poor american family and believe that that had a great deal in making me who I am. Why should I be ashamed or afraid to talk about it?
My family was really poor… Single parent family, my mom was a waitress in a Denny’s and eventually a checker in a grocery store raising three kids with no other support… I met my father for the first time when I was 14 who never contributed financially or emotionally to my upbringing… I recently drove by the house I grew up in. It was condemned, borded up, and in the midst of a Chicano war zone in North Indio. It really doesn’t get much worse in this country.
I question if I would have had the drive to succeed if I wouldn’t have needed to get out. I worked my ass off in public school to qualify for scholarships to get me to the next level. I drove east until I ran out of gas in Philadelphia and worked in a wharehouse there for a month until I had enough money to make the rest of the trip to New York. My first year at NYU I lived in Harlem on 153rd and St. Nicholas Ave, subsisted on onion soup and rice, and eventually left to pursue a career as a professional ballet dancer… go figure…
I have no regrets. My struggles made me who I am and I embrace them. Let’s all talk about it… I don’t see this as a taboo subject… I see this as the first step in the American Dream. We all make our own destinies in this country. Ambition can make a poor man rich and even make a black man president. And the farther we travel on our journey, the more we appreciate where we are. What a great place! (sorry to throw another taboo subject out there, don’t hate me…)
My statement was intended as irony. But you already knew that. 🙂
Troy, it’s wonderful that you succeeded. You also have a very rare level of both intelligence and drive, and in addition you got at least one extraordinarily lucky break, timing-wise – albeit one you were ready for, because you had put the work in beforehand.
It’s always possible to find an outlier on the graph such as yourself. But one exception, or even a handful of exceptions, does not change a pervasive situation. The economic deck in this country is highly stacked in favor of the children of people who already have money. This shows up in everything from access to quality health care (which in turn statistically influences intellectual development) to quality of public schools (via the pervasive policy of paying for public schools out of local property taxes).
It is not being poor that is unspeakable, it is the way the game is rigged – so that only extraordinarily exceptional individuals such as yourself manage to get out. In the U.S. we are not supposed to talk about this level of unfairness, lest we be branded communists.
Not sure what our president’s mixed race has to do with any of this. The guy was raised by a phenomenally brilliant mother who had an extremely high level of education – the single greatest statistical indicator of success for children in our society.
The reference to the President wasn’t about poverty, but, about boundaries or at least the perception of boundaries that I believe are only there if you let them be. Not very long ago, if you mentioned the possibility of a black President, people would have said you were crazy. No matter what their personal beliefs were in terms of race.
I believe that the same is true in terms of poverty. We don’t have true poverty in this country. Travel to a third world country where you see people existing in conditions that you don’t think support human life and you’ll understand poverty.
Also, yes, I did have one really big break. I got really lucky. But, before that, I was writing books, I had finished a successful career in the arts, I was writing curriculum and teaching at NYU, I was giving talks around the country… It wasn’t about one lucky break it was about drive and the refusal to accept boundaries. I was successful without the Yahoo! deal.
I frequently give talks at public schools and youthgroups about ambition. I try to convey the fact that their only boundaries to success are whether they try… whether they actually show up to the game. Ambition will get you anywhere.
In these talks, a quarter of them check out, a quarter of them listen but don’t participate, a few giggle in their little cliques, and a small group, usually the ones from minority families, the ones that seem to come from austere backgrounds, light up… ask questions… join the conversation… Of this group, I hope that a few of them remember, listen, and succeed… and that they don’t forget about where they came from.
You mention healthcare… I grew up in waiting rooms at free clinics waiting to get immunizations… Nothing has changed there. Personally, I don’t think it’s as bad as everyone is pretending. Does poor access to healthcare cause the problems in the kids, or, are problem kids more likely to come from families with poor access to healthcare… Just curious. There are probably other factors at work here.
What is our goal? Should everyone be the same and have the same? Not a criticism, a serious question…
There’s always going to be differences, and no matter how broad or narrow the differences, someone’s not going to be happy about them. There’s always going to be unfairness… Genetic, geographic, economic… Why be afraid to talk about it? I’m not… Which is probably why I make so many enemies… I like dialog… especially between people of different ideas… that’s one of the reasons I’ve had fun with your blog. We have VERY different ideas about how the world works, and yet, we are both smart people. And as you’ve probably noticed, nothing is Taboo with me. 🙂
Just curious, why are you so worried about being branded a communist? If you really believe in the Utopian ideal, wear that badge with pride. McCarthy’s been dead for years… 🙂
Wow Troy, I think it’s time for you to start your own blog again. You’ve been writing more here than I have!
I can’t figure out the distinction you are making in your question “Does poor access to healthcare cause the problems in the kids, or, are problem kids more likely to come from families with poor access to healthcare?” Either way, it’s a rigged game – come from the wrong family and you’re at an automatic disadvantage.
Genetic differences between individuals should not be conflated with differences in economic opportunity between entire groups of people. Individual genetic difference is a given (which is why the question “Should everyone be the same?” is pointless – everyone is, in fact, different), whereas the level of difference in economic opportunities available to different communities is highly influenced by a society’s attitude toward its citizens.
What gave you the idea I would be afraid to be branded a communist? What I actually said was “In the U.S. we are not supposed to talk about this level of unfairness, lest we be branded communists.” That doesn’t mean I’d have a problem with it personally, although that label doesn’t happen to fit my views very well. On the other hand, I’m already somewhere on the far side of atheist, so it isn’t as though I’m going to run for higher office anytime soon. 🙂
Sorry Ken… Guess I’ve been in a writing mood lately… Writing my personal blog, writing my business blog, writing for my local paper in Big Sky, writing articles for Trade magazines, writing a book…
guess I got a little too verbose here. I enjoy the banter… 🙂
Not sure I understand “far side of Atheist”. Does that mean you are an atheist or a theist? 🙂 Not that it matters, just find that curious as you seem to often relate very much to being jewish. I do understand that that can mean cultural and not religious… I just assumed that you meant religeously as well.
Personally, I have trouble accepting the existance of a god… It’s just a very difficult thing for me to “Believe” and I see no reason to force that upon myself… But, I don’t call my self an atheist… that has the assumption that I “should” believe… I’m as much an atheist as I am a non-leprechaunist… weird lables…
But, I like the idea of a supreme being… Which is why the message hidden in Pi affected me with a sense of awe (even though you saw it as literary buffoonery) but, as much as it is an awesome idea, it is not a belief system that fits into my actual view of the world…
(cue lightning bolt)
Yes, I meant it in precisely the same way you do when describing your own views. The word “Atheist” is too loaded – it suggests that there is something to talk about. I am to an Atheist as an Atheist is to a Theist.
In your elegant formulation, I am not even a non-leprechaunist. Just as I neither believe in green cheese on the moon, nor don’t believe in green cheese on the moon (see my posts on April 5 and 6).
BTW, Carl Sagan’s fantasy of rearranging the digits of Pi to reveal a hidden circle pattern offended me partly because Pi is already awe inspiring, without the imposition of something that comes across to me as a human-pandering, ploddingly literal, fantasy. Pi is truly magnificent in its wild state, and needs no such nonsense. In the words of Jean Cocteau: “A true poet does not bother to be poetical. Nor does a nursery gardener scent his roses.”