Comedy based on a university campus seems to enjoy a revival every decade or so. I remember 'A Very Peculiar Practice' (1986-8) which ran while I was studying at the University of Warwick and was apparently based on occurrences that had happened there as the author, Andrew Davis, had studied there. In particular the American vice chancellor and the incompetent doctor who served the university's medical centre and was still doing so while I was a student, were referenced. Previously there had been 'The History Man' (novel 1975; television 1981) by my old friend Malcolm Bradbury, set at the fictional university of Watermouth apparently modelled on Brighton, though Lancaster University, the University of Sussex and the University of East Anglia where Bradbury taught have also been cited. That story was as much about the sexual and political mores of males in the 1970s as about university life. Also worth mentioning is 'The Comic Strip Presents - The Summer School' (1983) shot at the University of East Anglia.
I saw the other day that David Lodge's 'campus trilogy': 'Changing Places: A Tale of Two Campuses' (1975), 'Small World: An Academic Romance' (novel 1984; television series 1988) and 'Nice Work' (novel 1988; television series 1989) has been re-released. Like Bradbury, Lodge has long worked in universities. A lot of this fiction pokes gentle fun at places which most of the population never went close to. With the rise in the level of eighteen-year olds attending university from 6% at the time 'A Very Peculiar Practice' was showing to 42% today it is probably to be expected that with them coming more into the experience of young people and their 'helicopter' parents that a university would be the basis for more situation comedies in particular.
Last year actually saw two university situation comedies. The first was 'Campus' which had been piloted in 2009. It attained very low viewing figures and it was easy to see why. Rather than using the university setting as a microcosm to reflect on wider society as these other stories had done, it was specifically about the interaction between academics and their very particular concerns such as research profile, issues that mean nothing to students let alone the large mass of the population. It was as engaging as a comedy about the teaching staff of Eton would have been. In addition it was simply not funny, despite being produced by the same team as the far more successful 'Green Wing' (2004-7) hospital situation comedy; it certainly lacked the wit of Bradbury or Lodge. Interestingly the biggest impact (if true) is that I have been told that Brunel University (located in West London rather than Bristol as you might have expected) removed a sculpture of the word 'Brunel' made of free-standing red plastic letters as in 'Campus' the university featured, Kirke University, had something identical.
The second university situation comedy of 2011 was 'Fresh Meat', also shown on Channel 4, but to a much warmer response. One reason for this is that it came from the perspective of six students sharing a house. Unlike many portrayals of universities on television, this was up-to-date given all the news about first-year students being unable to be accommodated in student halls and being farmed out into houses. It seems to be set at Manchester Metropolitan University. It features a cross-section of students studying geology, dentistry and English literature including the rather rebellious Vod (Zawe Ashton) who looks like a classic lesbian but is straight and geek Howard (Greg McHugh); more mainstream sometimes almost couple Josie (Kimberley Nixon) and Kingsley (Joe Thomas) as well as the upper middle class 'Oregon' (real name Melissa, played by Charlotte Ritchie) and upper class J.P. played by stand-up comedian Jack Whitehall who makes much play of his social class in his comedy. There were criticisms about the fact that sex featured so highly in the series. However, I feel that this reflects reality. Back in the 1980s 40% of students graduated as virgins but we live in different times and with 34% of UK boys and 38% of UK girls having sex before 16 in 2008, this is not surprising. In my day even when people were not having sex they were still angsting about it and I doubt that has died out.
The show is contemporary in approach in most things. The classes it shows are far too small for the size that is actually the case certainly over the past decade. However, at least it moves a few increments on from most drama series which show all universities, no matter how modern as having a kind of Oxbridge supervisory system that even Oxbridge no longer has.
There is of course the staff-student relationship between 'Oregon' and Professor Tony Shales, something which seems to be compulsory for any story featuring universities to include. Whilst I may be tired of that kind of relationship being portrayed I have to confess I have worked with two women who have married their lecturers and whilst in and around universities knew at least three male academic staff who had married or had long-term relationships with particular students. The one aspect that all television dramas about universities seem to miss that these days with more mature students (officially defined as students over 25 in UK or 26 in continental Europe), though with fees their numbers are dropping away, it is more than likely that an academic will encounter single or divorced students their own age which seems far more likely to spark a relationship than them chasing 18 year olds. However, I have never seen such a relationship shown in the media. The closest is 'Educating Rita' (play 1980; movie 1983) and in that case the sexual relationship was ruled out primarily on social class grounds
'Fresh Meat' does address concerns of contemporart students, showing the revival of student radicalism in these 'Occupy' times but this sitting alongside the usual worries about grades and relationships. The fact that most of the characters come from comfortable middle class families if not upper class ones accurately reflects the UK university system which has seen a stagnation in working class recruitment since 2002. The real growth in attendance in universities has been among the less capable siblings of middle class people who would normally have gone anyway. The characters of 'Oregon' and J.P. are reflective of those who go to university but Vod, Josie and Kingsley do not come from impoverished backgrounds either. 'Oregon''s attempts to appear more ordinary than she is, much to Vod's changrin is again spot on target.
It is not a laugh out loud series, more one in which you go 'yes, that is so true', things like the friends you try to get rid of and the boy/girlfriends from home who cling on to students yet believing they are more 'real' than anyone studying at university. The issues around parties remain pretty much the same as they always have been. In some ways the series is a more grounded version of 'The Young Ones' (1981) but in my view is both entertaining and engaging. Channel 4 has sensibly decided to keep 'Fresh Meat' live on its 4OD service and I recommend you go and watch it there: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/fresh-meat/4od
Showing posts with label 'The History Man'. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 'The History Man'. Show all posts
Saturday, 11 February 2012
Tuesday, 15 January 2008
How Does Liberal Humanism Survive in the Age of Fundamental 'Truths'?
This might seem overly philosophical and to some extent represents the fact that my brain seemed to wake up after falling into disuse over the weekend. I thought of a lot of things to blog, but given my poor memory have forgotten most of them, bar this one, but I hope they will come back to mind, probably when I am driving down the motorway and can do nothing about it. Recently at the company I work for I was interviewed by a woman and the only recording device she had was her mobile phone. The first time I have seen an hour's recording captured that way. Anyway, today's posting was prompted by a review in 'The Guardian' newspaper on Saturday of 'The History Man' by Malcolm Bradbury (1975; TV series 1981 - I actually sat behind the author once in a cinema, a nice man, appeared very much as you would expect). A lot of the review was about the economical writing of the book and the focus on the outward perception of things rather than any concern for inner thoughts. However, the part that provoked my thinking was the novel's exploration of the weakness of liberal humanism with, to quote, 'its built-in tolreance and self-doubt' in the face of 'those convinced they have a monopoly of the truth'. When it was written Marxism (represented in the book by the 'hero' Howard Kirk, a university lecturer in sociology) seemed to be the prime source of those who felt they had the monopoly on the truth. Soon after though came two more sources to eclipse the Marxists - the New Right and Religious Fundamentalists. These are the two broad groups who seem to challenge liberal humanism today.
Now, I know for US readers anything called 'liberal' seems dirty, sordid, corrupt even. The USA is the only country in the English-speaking world where you can insult someone by calling them a liberal, maybe because they have more of the truth monopolists of both the New Right and the Religious Fundamentalist categories than anywhere else. For the rest of us, liberal humanism is what marks out life in the early 21st century from that of the early 20th century. It seeks to protect us from the random nature of life which can lay low even the most wealthy and wreck the lives of anyone else less rich. In particular it encourages us to have a 'safety net' for people made vulnerable through disease, poverty, old age, war, ignorance, bigotry and so on. It also tries to stop the spread of violence, corruption, narcotics, etc. reducing us all to barbarians. It makes war seem like something to avoid and embrace instead getting along with people and respecting them. Of course it is a constant battle and one that in many parts of the World is being lost, but that does not mean there is any reason to give up the fight.
People may argue that liberal humanism appeared at the time of the Enlightenment in the 18th century, but it has been around lurking in the background for many millenia. In Ancient Rome you had slavery and gladiatorial fights but you also had the chance for manumission and the grain 'dole'. In the Middle Ages there was constant warring and narrow-minded attitudes and persecution from churches but there was also alms-giving, hospitals and concepts of chivalry (however idealised they may have been) that sought to dissuade people from abusing the poor, slaughtering prisoners and raping women.
Yes, liberal humanism does embrace self-doubt and tolerance. If it did not embrace tolerance then it could not exist, it would not embrace humans and humanity in all of its diversity. To have any feeling for humans obliges you to be tolerant. As to self-doubt, I would argue that it is not really doubt, rather it is self-questioning and self-verifying. You may argue then how does it verify that what it is doing is correct, and certainly approaches can be contested. However, surely it is better to actually seek to verify your actions rather than steam ahead dogmatically. In addition, the truth monopolists are not free from doubt and in fact are often fearful of defeat, part of the motive for driving them on. Take one example, the Nazi regime in Germany. The Nazis argued their empire would last 1000 years, yet on the other hand they were so fearful of the Jews that they felt they had to wipe them out. Yet, in turn, they thought the Jews were weak compared to the Aryan race and corrupt, so you might ask them 'why do you fear these people if they are so weak compared to you?' Thus, to say that fundamentalism lacks self-doubt is wrong. Every revolutionary body or fundamentalist religious group has a tendency to fragment which may show confidence in oneself, but doubt in the self of the broader grouping as it previously existed.
Liberal humanism is certainly under threat, possibly because it is hard to sell the necessary positive image when there seem to so many fears. The threat of nuclear war which it seemed able to address has now been replaced by the threat of terrorism (though of course it has been around for decades, it has just started to be used in a much more aggressive way as a threat) and ironically environmental damage which requires liberal humanism to effectively address. The fact that liberal humanism is still alive at all, reflects the huge leap in communications of the past two decades. Without the internet I imagine we would be living in much more authoritarian times. It is no wonder that dictatorships such as China and Singapore (until it found it was too expensive to continue doing) censor their people's access to the internet. The shift of the post-war consensus, notable in the UK towards the so-called Thatcher Consensus, but common across the Western world with the rise of the New Right in the 1980s matched by similar rise of authoritarian attitudes in many Muslim states made it easier to make the step to the next stage in the 2000s which is a rapid erosion of civil liberties, ironically in the name of protecting freedom in the face of comparatively small threats which have been exacerbated by bigoted, aggressive moves in the first place. In this world it is now normal to accept detention without trial for a month or even years (once you reach Guantanamo Bay), the use of torture by even low-level soldiers, invasion of countries to secure resources, greater control of movement of people and a general sustained hysteria.
How can liberal humanism survive? To some extent by becoming devout. It might seem weird to say 'yes, I am a devout liberal humanist'. Whatever people might say, in fact that is not contradictory with saying 'I am also a Christian/a Muslim/American'. All gods love the people they oversee so any worshipper should love humans too. Religions and the American constitution tend to praise mercy and respect for people and it is there in the Bible, Koran, Torah, US Constitution if you look no matter what people might tell you. The key thing is to see what the key tenets are of liberal humanism. They are few and are easily applicable in many circumstances, it is just that all decent people have to keep saying them loud and proud. The key aspect is to treat people like people. Even to treat people like animals in this age of increased rights for animals, would be a step up in many places in the World. Do not torture, do not detain without charge, do not make people homeless, do not deny them drugs you can afford to give them, do not deny them food you throw away in vast quantities, do not kill or harm someone because they look different from you or follow a different view, let people meet, let people speak, let people travel. Everything we expect for ourselves is the minimum we should allow others.
I passed two postcards in people's windows over the past few months. One showed a refugee family behind a barbed wire fence, with the text explaining how they had fled to the country portrayed to escape repression only to step into repression. The other showed the Statue of Liberty against the Stars and Stripes, and said that the USA that person believes in would never torture people. Liberal humanism is not weak and people need to see that. It is a far better counter to fear and danger than any amount of repression and authoritarian attitudes. What will destroy it is people believing it has no tenets and that it is already dead. The bulk of you know what the World needs because for most people it is what they, as a human like all the rest of us, needs.
Now, I know for US readers anything called 'liberal' seems dirty, sordid, corrupt even. The USA is the only country in the English-speaking world where you can insult someone by calling them a liberal, maybe because they have more of the truth monopolists of both the New Right and the Religious Fundamentalist categories than anywhere else. For the rest of us, liberal humanism is what marks out life in the early 21st century from that of the early 20th century. It seeks to protect us from the random nature of life which can lay low even the most wealthy and wreck the lives of anyone else less rich. In particular it encourages us to have a 'safety net' for people made vulnerable through disease, poverty, old age, war, ignorance, bigotry and so on. It also tries to stop the spread of violence, corruption, narcotics, etc. reducing us all to barbarians. It makes war seem like something to avoid and embrace instead getting along with people and respecting them. Of course it is a constant battle and one that in many parts of the World is being lost, but that does not mean there is any reason to give up the fight.
People may argue that liberal humanism appeared at the time of the Enlightenment in the 18th century, but it has been around lurking in the background for many millenia. In Ancient Rome you had slavery and gladiatorial fights but you also had the chance for manumission and the grain 'dole'. In the Middle Ages there was constant warring and narrow-minded attitudes and persecution from churches but there was also alms-giving, hospitals and concepts of chivalry (however idealised they may have been) that sought to dissuade people from abusing the poor, slaughtering prisoners and raping women.
Yes, liberal humanism does embrace self-doubt and tolerance. If it did not embrace tolerance then it could not exist, it would not embrace humans and humanity in all of its diversity. To have any feeling for humans obliges you to be tolerant. As to self-doubt, I would argue that it is not really doubt, rather it is self-questioning and self-verifying. You may argue then how does it verify that what it is doing is correct, and certainly approaches can be contested. However, surely it is better to actually seek to verify your actions rather than steam ahead dogmatically. In addition, the truth monopolists are not free from doubt and in fact are often fearful of defeat, part of the motive for driving them on. Take one example, the Nazi regime in Germany. The Nazis argued their empire would last 1000 years, yet on the other hand they were so fearful of the Jews that they felt they had to wipe them out. Yet, in turn, they thought the Jews were weak compared to the Aryan race and corrupt, so you might ask them 'why do you fear these people if they are so weak compared to you?' Thus, to say that fundamentalism lacks self-doubt is wrong. Every revolutionary body or fundamentalist religious group has a tendency to fragment which may show confidence in oneself, but doubt in the self of the broader grouping as it previously existed.
Liberal humanism is certainly under threat, possibly because it is hard to sell the necessary positive image when there seem to so many fears. The threat of nuclear war which it seemed able to address has now been replaced by the threat of terrorism (though of course it has been around for decades, it has just started to be used in a much more aggressive way as a threat) and ironically environmental damage which requires liberal humanism to effectively address. The fact that liberal humanism is still alive at all, reflects the huge leap in communications of the past two decades. Without the internet I imagine we would be living in much more authoritarian times. It is no wonder that dictatorships such as China and Singapore (until it found it was too expensive to continue doing) censor their people's access to the internet. The shift of the post-war consensus, notable in the UK towards the so-called Thatcher Consensus, but common across the Western world with the rise of the New Right in the 1980s matched by similar rise of authoritarian attitudes in many Muslim states made it easier to make the step to the next stage in the 2000s which is a rapid erosion of civil liberties, ironically in the name of protecting freedom in the face of comparatively small threats which have been exacerbated by bigoted, aggressive moves in the first place. In this world it is now normal to accept detention without trial for a month or even years (once you reach Guantanamo Bay), the use of torture by even low-level soldiers, invasion of countries to secure resources, greater control of movement of people and a general sustained hysteria.
How can liberal humanism survive? To some extent by becoming devout. It might seem weird to say 'yes, I am a devout liberal humanist'. Whatever people might say, in fact that is not contradictory with saying 'I am also a Christian/a Muslim/American'. All gods love the people they oversee so any worshipper should love humans too. Religions and the American constitution tend to praise mercy and respect for people and it is there in the Bible, Koran, Torah, US Constitution if you look no matter what people might tell you. The key thing is to see what the key tenets are of liberal humanism. They are few and are easily applicable in many circumstances, it is just that all decent people have to keep saying them loud and proud. The key aspect is to treat people like people. Even to treat people like animals in this age of increased rights for animals, would be a step up in many places in the World. Do not torture, do not detain without charge, do not make people homeless, do not deny them drugs you can afford to give them, do not deny them food you throw away in vast quantities, do not kill or harm someone because they look different from you or follow a different view, let people meet, let people speak, let people travel. Everything we expect for ourselves is the minimum we should allow others.
I passed two postcards in people's windows over the past few months. One showed a refugee family behind a barbed wire fence, with the text explaining how they had fled to the country portrayed to escape repression only to step into repression. The other showed the Statue of Liberty against the Stars and Stripes, and said that the USA that person believes in would never torture people. Liberal humanism is not weak and people need to see that. It is a far better counter to fear and danger than any amount of repression and authoritarian attitudes. What will destroy it is people believing it has no tenets and that it is already dead. The bulk of you know what the World needs because for most people it is what they, as a human like all the rest of us, needs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
