Classical Music Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Does Classical Music Study Turn One Against Liberalism?

19K views 104 replies 29 participants last post by  mmsbls 
#1 ·
Do you think that after knowing classical music, it tends to make a person less liberal and more moderate or conservative?

As a moderate, I feel that liberalism, in the same way as communism, is slowly fading out. People like Jordan Peterson show how academia is turning against liberal ideas. I hold environmental views and championing the rights of the poor and working class, and most of my friends since my teen years could be called liberal. I don't like divisiveness around people where it need not be in the slightest way, and so I don't use political terms to talk about human beings. I don't think that the terms liberal and conservative are real world descriptions, much like the way some philosophers say that language cannot talk about metaphysical ideas accurately.

So, not asking people to come out saying they are liberal or conservative just if the values that it takes to listen to and even play classical music has less of a chance in a liberal mindset than conservative.
 
#62 · (Edited)
The reality is if you get the government to subsidise classical music you are forcing everyone to pay for something that only a few people want. Saying that Classical Musicians should get paid more because they are talented is ridiculous. I could be really talented at throwing toast over long distances after having gone to toast throwing school for five years. However, if no one cares about toast throwing and there is no immediate use, practically, for toast throwers than I will get paid nothing despite my obvious talent as a toast thrower.

To answer the original question I believe Classical Music has very little (probably next to no) effect on political orientation. A poll done a while back showed that (of the users that took the poll) the majority were liberal. I would guess, however, that Classical Music listeners who use forums are in general more liberal than Classical Music listeners that don't use forums.

On Jordan Peterson (who seems to come up in every internet political discussion) has, like many people, probably has some good ideas and some bad ones. I tend to agree, and find reasonable, most of what he said in his earlier videos and the core of his message, however, I find he occasionally says exceedingly dumb things to stoke controversy. Like the forced monogamy comment, or the comment that feminist accept Muslims because they secretly like to be dominated. Monogamy may be a good thing (every highly successful society throughout history has been largely monogamous) but to have the government enforce it would be a blatant disregard for peoples freedoms.

Edit: Also I believe the OP incorrectly uses the term Liberalism. Liberalism is the philosophy that was created during the Enlightenment; it is highly individualistic and has very little to do with what modern day liberals believe in.
 
#64 ·
Edit: Also I believe the OP incorrectly uses the term Liberalism. Liberalism is the philosophy that was created during the Enlightenment; it is highly individualistic and has very little to do with what modern day liberals believe in.
Only the U.S. seems to have this later unusual usage. Every other country I am aware of seems to know exactly what liberalism means, as distinct from various sorts of conservatism and various varieties of socialism along with other tangents from these three.

'Liberal' as it is now used in the U.S seems to me to be chiefly used as a pejorative term to mean variously: not conservative; not a capitalist cheerleader; not a closet racist or homophobe. In effect they have made it meaningless.
 
G
#63 · (Edited)
Do you think that after knowing classical music, it tends to make a person less liberal and more moderate or conservative?
No.

Actually, rereading the OP, I'm confused. There are two separate questions.

Do you think that after knowing classical music, it tends to make a person less liberal and more moderate or conservative?
and

asking people [...] if the values that it takes to listen to and even play classical music has less of a chance in a liberal mindset than conservative.
I've not read the whole thread - did someone already point this out?
 
G
#67 ·
There are certainly differences between countries over the meanings of such words. Take liberalism:

"Over time, the meaning of the word "liberalism" began to diverge in different parts of the world. According to the Encyclopædia Britannica: "In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal programme of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies". Consequently, in the United States the ideas of individualism and laissez-faire economics previously associated with classical liberalism became the basis for the emerging school of libertarian thought and are key components of American conservatism.

In North America, unlike Europe and Latin America, the word "liberalism" almost exclusively refers to social liberalism." (Wikipedia)

Easy to see how confusion can arise :rolleyes:
 
#69 ·
I am not conservative because there is little to nothing I wish to conserve in today's political environment. I embrace the moniker 'regressive.' Classical music makes me sympathize with monarchism and Christianity, but I'm not those either. All I've ever wanted was an Athenian city-state. :(
 
#70 ·
I like the old formulations: "flaming liberal" and "bleeding heart liberal", though "progressive" is also nice--it hearkens back to the days when Republicans (Teddy Roosevelt) could be progressive. Then they kicked Teddy out of the party, and we got Warren Gamaliel Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover instead. Plus The Great Depression.
 
#73 ·
From the time I was 16 or so, I have only gotten more liberal with each passing year. If loving and listening to classical music had any effect, it either helped make me even more liberal or it wasn't enough to counteract the effect of the rest of my experiences.
 
#75 ·
No, I don't think classical music turns anyone against liberalism. I was involved in a development plan for our city several years ago. One of the proposed elements was a fine arts center. The (American) conservatives said that we shouldn't have it because it wouldn't pay for itself.

I tried to tell them that very few arts centers are going to pay for themselves by the tickets sold at the door. In times past, corporate donations helped pay the cost. The head of corporations now are younger and don't necessarily see the need to donate to classical music.

From the conservative view, if a private sector company wants to pay for the arts that's fine. If tax money is used they are against it. In the past, however, pubic schools both secondary and colleges have used tax money for music, literature, etc. The reason being that the arts are seen as promoting a better quality of life. That's where IMHO the U.S. falls short. Buying the latest new car does not improve your quality of life and even the internet doesn't depending on how it's used.

We still need music, philosophy, literature, and religion to fulfill our quality of life.
 
#76 ·
I find it interesting that over the years, I have become more musically conservative and extremely politically progressive/leftist.

I've yet to figure out why there's such a disconnect in my musical ideology versus political ideology.
I'm not even a conservative when it comes to visual art either. Really puzzles me.
 
#78 ·
After being a member of a couple of liberal/progressive groups on Facebook (I'm not on Facebook anymore), it seems to me that part of the problem is that the liberalism of today has no vision of what they see the future should look like.

In many ways they are like the conservatives. They are looking backwards to a "better time" when labor unions were strong and Great Society programs. I personally think that they need a vision for the future and be able to clearly articulate it. Whoever writes up the position statements of the Democratic Party or the Green Party need to articulate it to the average voter.

One thing that I would like to say. I was surprised many years ago when I came on classical forums and made many "friends" from all over the world. It was like there were no boundaries. It's all about the music. That alone is huge. The average person is very similar in all countries. The difference might be economic or class position within their own country. But we all come together to listen to classical music that we love. That's pretty neat.
 
#79 ·
no, I think its the policies of liberal politicians that turn anybody with a decent job against liberalism

and also, people tend to go conservative as they get closer to retirement, so if you studied classical music for 30 years and at the end were more conservative, that's not classical music, that's just knowing which side your bread is buttered on

the time for social upheaval and bringing down apparatus of capitalist society is early in life before you have a mortgage and a family and are planning a retirement

revolutions tend to throw wrenches into your 401K
 
#80 ·
I think the government should subsidize arts, because these are forms which need funding because they lie outside the parameters of industry and consumer markets. Art is done independently of these institutions, by artists. This could include any kind of music in any form, by any people, including orchestras. It could be free jazz, noise music, electronic experimentation, anything.
 
#81 · (Edited)
Rap? Country? Easy listening? Or, if you're only interested in music that can't support itself, how about bagpipes? Singing through megaphones? Peruvian nose flute? Bulgarian burp music?

Or, if as seems likely to me, you want the government to subsidize only the music you prefer, I'll be happy to write my congressman and ask him to spend my money on your musical tastes.
 
#85 · (Edited)
For all I know, after listening to the Ninth, I always feel like embracing every living thing on this planet - every man, animal and plant - and say, I love you - personally! This is, in concreto, a most progressive (or liberal, in American nomenclature) response to "knowing" classical music.

As regards the other issue, whether governments ought to subsidise the fine arts, I always think of Beethoven and his sudden inability - when at last financially secured by a patron - to produce anything at all. It seems as though he needed the struggle somehow... as though his art thrived only in opposition (to life's crude conditions). This also happened to Solzhenitsyn while in exile to Vermont: his soul "clogged up" and he could not write a single (valuable) miniature.
 
#86 · (Edited)
Emotions and politics do not mix. "Toxic masculinity" is the topic here, but nobody is admitting it. It's time we separated those two words and treated men better rather than forcing them into crime.

Petersen and Paglia are on the front of today's issues and it takes guts to stand up to people who throw cheap shots at them for not being chill about all the garbage in our society. And who even cares what the fools in academia think? They only know how to preach to privileged 20-somethings who are forced to listen to them, who then leave college and can't get a job.

Funding for the arts? Pull out your wallet and start supporting those artists yourself!! Look at Lincoln Center's agenda now. Why pay for what I don't like? State-funded art is typically inferior and utilitarian, but we now live in an age where many people can't tell the difference.

The OP was obviously intended as bait for political conflict. I'm in.
 
#87 ·
Strange, both Peterson and Paglia are in academia, because it is actually made up of many voices. Yet when some mavericks want to make a commotion it's much easier to play the role of 'courageous lone voice among the herd' and then make speeches based upon personal prejudices and opinion.

There is definitely a discussion to be had about men, masculinity, and men's roles, but not baying angry lunatics consuming Peterson videos and going about bleating 'cultural marxism!!'.
 
This post has been deleted
#88 · (Edited)
To say someone is "in academia" might just not have much meaning anymore, really, not when stated just for rhetorical convenience. Nor may it be meaningful to speak of "many voices" in academia, when we know that's not really the truth.

You can't fool me. I spent my time in the enlightened hallows of California universities, and did all the things that were supposed to make me better, and have a sibling teaching in a university today. Over and over, short-term social fashions are not strong enough to stand the long-term test of political application, and are usually abandoned by the next generation of progressives who can't see the cycle of failure.

So, I can run my own tests on the "many voices" postulate, and how it fits my own observations, and judge for myself. Reading the above post, it appears to stop fitting with "but not baying angry lunatics", i.e. men to be ignored in a convo about masculinity. That's equivalent to saying grievous women can't discuss feminism.

While my natural humanity has been attacked from so many angles, and I've done all the hard work I need to live with who I am, I am somehow at fault for this according to people who haven't done the work. Fix yourself before you think you can fix others, and listen to those who have done the work.
 
#90 ·
To say someone is "in academia" might just not have much meaning anymore, really, not when stated just for rhetorical convenience. Nor may it be meaningful to speak of "many voices" in academia, when we know that's not really the truth.
Except that they are academics working in academia, which is pretty much the standard definition, not rhetorical convenience. Certainly no more than the rhetorical convenience of pretending that academia is some kind of code-word for 'Leninists'. Only people who have never seen the inside of academia think it is not comprised of many different views, or perhaps the 'mavericks' who don't get a hearing for their quackery on the inside so have to go with a megaphone to the likes of You Tube.

You can't fool me. I spent my time in the enlightened hallows of California universities, and did all the things that were supposed to make me better, and have a sibling teaching in a university today. Over and over, short-term social fashions are not strong enough to stand the long-term test of political application, and are usually abandoned by the next generation of progressives who can't see the cycle of failure.
You can't fool me either. I've worked in universities in three different countries and the general make-up is the same. I can't say if this is the case for American universities, but if it is so (I doubt it) then it is a cultural problem and not academic. The sort of 'left-wing' conspiracy accusation levelled at American academia is doubly laughable in a country that has always been more-or-less dominated by the right-wing in political life. The ideas just live in the universities, as is only right in a place where ALL ideas are considered, but now it it is a fairy story about how such ideas are piled into the heads of unwitting students.

So, I can run my own tests on the "many voices" postulate, and how it fits my own observations, and judge for myself. Reading the above post, it appears to stop fitting with "but not baying angry lunatics", i.e. men to be ignored in a convo about masculinity. That's equivalent to saying grievous women can't discuss feminism.
You're mistaken on two counts: first I didn't state or even imply that men should be counted out of that discussion, and secondly men aren't counted out of the discussion. To think so is to be wilfully blind for ideological reasons. There is no 'suppression of men's voices', this is the big lie. There has however been a long 'challenge' to ideas of male dominance which has not always been carried out rigorously or helpfully and I'm glad to see that get challenged in turn. However when some quack starts raving about 'cultural marxism' I'm no longer interested.

While my natural humanity has been attacked from so many angles, and I've done all the hard work I need to live with who I am, I am somehow at fault for this according to people who haven't done the work. Fix yourself before you think you can fix others, and listen to those who have done the work.
Everybody is and has been busy pal, not just you.
 
#89 · (Edited)
Away from the rhetorical jousting re academia, I don't really support Peterson except for his role as a counter-force, reminds me of "Iron John" in the 80s which was also nutty. It's kinda silly to see a lot of single moms adopt him as a proxy mentor for their sons, but I'm not sure what other resources they have, so apparently he fills a need.

I don't lump Paglia with him, she's got ten times the spine and hits her target more often. It's true that Jordan seems angry or even hurt and it's not a good look, but there's evidence for you that one more myth about men - that they "age better" - is BS, and our expectancy is not rising like women's.

Michelle Obama recently made a big deal about men not being social with each other. Darned if you do, darned if you don't...
 
#92 · (Edited by Moderator)
I have made up my mind and all I see are weak assertions not accurate, useful, or consistent, that those who see quite well are blind, or on "voodoo", etc. Low life trash talk that proves I am right while saying I'm wrong. And all it took was three posts to confirm this ideologist can't even carry my water.

So, nobody changed my mind about a thing, and there is nothing to dispute unless it's more productive than this.

About the OP: What happened to me politically has nothing to do with classical music, and any connection would be very indirect, and I could write a long memoir to explain but I don't want to. Let's just say that has lot has happened in this world since the Kennedy assassinations, just for perspective. I've always voted for Dems but I no longer feel that I have to, despite all the pressure to do so.

One reason is that they now push hostile agendas intent on either destroying or conquering traditional institutions. They have become saboteurs of our quality of life while demanding that they have more of it without working for it. ...

While the debate about "toxic masculinity" continues about men who struggle with all the negative pressure on them nowadays, ....

....

Obama was the last straw for me. I voted for him and watched him go sour on his country. Or maybe it's not his country, I'm not sure about these assumptions anymore. He botched some of his health care promises, and we still have medical fraud rampant in the industry. Aside from that he was compromised by bottomless narcissism into continuing the centuries-long global tradition of waging wars on foreign soil for "regime change", destabilizing of independent nations and massive displacements of people who kill each other in seeking refuge.

So you can have your open borders and your hate laws, if you can keep them, but I'll settle for protecting my simple natural rights to free speech, to bear arms (see Seven Samurai) and to call out fraud when I see it. And I see lots of it these days, especially in the non-profit sector that is the economic base of Democratic organizers. Here in California, the upcoming midterms are sure to be rigged, given the sanctuary cabal headed by Brown, Pelosi, Schiff, Lieu, Harris, and others. And I was on their side only 4 years ago, but no more.

Anything else? Back to sticking pins in the doll...
 
#93 · (Edited by Moderator)
I have made up my mind and all I see are weak assertions not accurate, useful, or consistent, that those who see quite well are blind, or on "voodoo", etc. Low life trash talk that proves I am right while saying I'm wrong. And all it took was three posts to confirm this ideologist can't even carry my water.

So, nobody changed my mind about a thing, and there is nothing to dispute unless it's more productive than this.
Bully for you. I don't see anything but empty assertions based on your uniformed opinion and the ravings of quacks. You've come up with nothing of substance yet are parading about in this thread like the voice of reason with all the facts at your fingertips.
I don't care about trying to change your mind, I'm replying to your false assertions and claims so they don't remain unchallenged.

One reason is that they now push hostile agendas intent on either destroying or conquering traditional institutions. They have become saboteurs of our quality of life while demanding that they have more of it without working for it. ...
This is complete hogwash, you need to actually get out of your chair and go outside. Plus, the 'neo-liberals' and the 'liberals' don't refer to the same thing. Neo-liberalism is essentially a reference to the modern version of laissez-faire economics, not 'social progressivism'.
The effects of economic immigration have not been properly managed and much of it has been a total failure. On the other hand there are much deeper reasons behind why poor countries stay poor and consequently why their citizens try to get into Europe. Since a large number of the people in Europe and the US are in denial about those reasons the default position has to be: 'blame it on the liberals/dems/socialists/whateverists...quack quack'.

Much of that is diversionary rubbish. It's not a gender issue, it is a class and economic power issue. While this wasteful battle of 'men's rights' and 'gender' is being fought out by stupid old men and misguided youth, the fate of men (white, black, gay, straight...) at the bottom of the economic ladder who have lost livelihoods because of crackpot right-wing political-economy worsens and they get dragged into these pseudo-political battles promising answers and delivering entertainment drivel.

So you can have your open borders and your hate laws, if you can keep them, but I'll settle for protecting my rights to free speech, to bear arms, and to call out fraud when I see it. And I see lots of it these days.

Anything else? Back to sticking pins in the doll...
And it's serving you so well isn't it? If all that age and experience had been used wisely you might not be trying to pin the blame for something arising out of corrupt economics on so-called destabilisation of traditional institutions.

Now you can write another long post pretending nothing was said or answered. Pop your blindfold back on.
 
This post has been deleted
#96 ·
You must be a fine comedian then because your three posts up there are full of that fake outrage. What strikes me is that the term 'faux outrage' is another of those current phrases in the flimsy armoury of the complainers.

Count me out, I'm just a farm boy at heart; completely uninterested in the tantrums of disgruntled pampered people.
 
#98 ·
I'm not complaining about it; I'm actually replying to the tedious complaints. A wise fellow like yourself ought to have realised it by now.

I haven't been employed at any educational institutions for a while and don't expect or intend to be. I'm not an academic.
 
G
#99 ·
Never mind "faux outrage". How about...how do I put this politely..."completely incomprehensible"? I haven't the faintest idea what philoctetes's posts have to do with the OP, which asked a reasonable question that doesn't entail standing on a soapbox spouting one's politics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top