Brains, Beauty and Balls: Eleanor Catton's uncompromising assault on New Zealand's neoliberal regime pushed all of the Right's political panic-buttons. Shock-jock Sean Plunket verbally slapped her down with the accusation of being both a "traitor" and "an ungrateful hua". Such over-the-top responses have vividly exposed the crude "sociocultural logic" of New Zealand's unique iteration of the neoliberal project.
ELEANOR CATTON was always going to be trouble. With her fine-china good-looks, transparent intelligence and uncharacteristic (for a Kiwi) articulateness, she was a political reprimand just waiting to happen. One had only to read her books or hear her speak to know that the same intuitive grasp of the human condition which secured her the Man Booker Prize was never going to let her line-up alongside the vacuous celebrities that accessorise the power brokers of the Right.
Catton’s beauty is a significant factor in the current controversy. No matter how unfair, a regular set of human features confers a very special kind of power upon those fortunate enough to possess them. In a culture saturated with advertising imagery, beauty has come to enjoy a mutually reinforcing relationship with authority. In a nutshell: beauty is believed, therefore, beauty sells. It also carries a potent sexual charge. Like it or not, messages, of whatever kind, have a much better chance of making it through our defences when they’re delivered by George Clooney or Scarlet Johansson.
That is why the Right becomes more than usually incensed when it is challenged by good-looking opponents. They know that their messages will reach the public unfiltered, and that their audience will not be distracted by bad hair or crooked teeth. It’s been that way since (at least) 1960, when the handsome, tanned and supremely confident John F. Kennedy easily overcame the jowly pallor and five o’clock shadow of a perspiring Richard Nixon in the first televised presidential debate. (Interestingly, those listening to the debate on the radio gave the victory to Nixon.)
The other great sin the Right could lay at Catton’s door is the near faultless diction of an upper-middle-class girl raised in the comfort and security of a loving academic family. Accents are an instant indicator of one’s social origins and a usually reliable guide to one’s place in society’s pecking-order. Deploying cut-glass vowels has always been an excellent way of putting the lower orders at a disadvantage. Under no circumstances, however, should they be deployed against members of one’s own class!
The third strike against Catton was her possession of a rich vocabulary and the wit to deploy it with jarring political accuracy. In other words, she was an intellectual. Even worse, she obviously felt no special obligation to hide her intellectual brilliance under a bushel.
The Right loathes intellectuals. The life of the mind offers little to those who place their faith in tradition and prejudice. Conservatives are, consequently, the natural enemies of critical thinking and evidence-based decision-making. A young, attractive, well-spoken and intellectual woman speaking truth to power will always be a cause for concern on the Right. But, when that woman is also an internationally celebrated Man Booker Prize winner, ‘concern’ doesn’t nearly cover it.
One suspects that to the lengthening list of her sins Catton’s critics were especially keen to add the sin of deceitfulness. How could someone from such a good family; so well-spoken and accomplished academically; the winner of a prestigious international literary prize; turn out to be a bloody leftie ?! Did the NZ Herald know about these “progressive” tendencies when they advanced her as a New Zealander of the Year? Surely not! And did Creative New Zealand know, when they were doling out all those grants to the little minx, that she was going to turn up at the Greens’ campaign launch and endorse them? One certainly hopes not.
And then, of course, there was Catton’s use of the term “neoliberal” to describe the governments of New Zealand, Canada and the UK.
It is one of the peculiar quirks of neoliberalism that its adherents not only vehemently deny that they are neoliberals, but also insist that neoliberalism itself only exists in the minds of economically illiterate leftists. Their denial is born of their need not to be thought of as ideologues. The neoliberal project is, above all else, an effort to have the market regarded as a natural phenomenon – no more amenable to human intervention than the weather. Their great objective is to have their highly contentious ideas accepted, finally, as simple common-sense, thus becoming the unremarked wallpaper of twenty-first century life. This cannot happen if people are encouraged to view them as the ideologically-driven zealots they truly are.
It is here that Catton’s gender, her beauty, diction and intellectual prowess become entangled in what the Australian sociologist, Professor Raewyn Connell, describes as “an embedded masculinity politics in the neoliberal project”.
“With a few exceptions”, writes Connell in Understanding Neoliberalism, “neoliberal leadership is composed of men. It’s treasured figure, ‘the entrepreneur,’ is culturally coded masculine. Its assault on the welfare state redistributes income from women to men and imposes more unpaid work on women as carers for the young, the old, and the sick. Its attack on ‘political correctness’ and its rollback of affirmative action specifically undermine the gains of feminism. In such ways, neoliberalism from the 1980s on offered middle-class men an indirect but effective solution to the delegitimation of patriarchy and the threat of real gender equality.”
The particular venom of the Right’s reaction to Catton’s criticism of John Key’s “neoliberal” government – exemplified by Sean Plunket’s vicious verbal backhanders: “traitor” and “ungrateful hua” – derives from the very special character of the “masculinity politics” embedded in the New Zealand neoliberal project.
As a political phenomenon, competing for power in democratic states, neoliberalism is constantly in search of viable electoral vectors. Under John Key, the vector selected is the overwhelmingly male, determinedly anti-intellectual, painfully inarticulate, culturally moronic and sports-mad portion of the New Zealand population. The part that reacts with frightening emotional fury against everything Eleanor Catton stands for. Theirs is the militant egalitarianism of the “ordinary bloke” who would instantly identify in Catton’s unblemished features, rounded vowels and polysyllabic vocabulary the absolute embodiment of an “up-herself middle-class bitch”.
Catton was wrong to invoke New Zealand’s 'tall-poppy syndrome' as the explanation for her personal cultural Calvary. A much more appropriate term has been coined by the South Korean sociologist, Jesook Song. Eleanor Catton is a victim of the “sociocultural logic” of Kiwi neoliberalism.
This essay was originally posted on The Daily Blog of Monday, 2 February 2015.
I confess, I had to Google what she said. And yes, that problem with beauty – I know it well :-). But let's face it, it's not just the right that hates intellectuals. It's practically the whole of New Zealand. I suppose it might be a hangover from that egalitarianism we used to have, or from the number 8 fencing wire mentality we were supposed to have. But as I have said several times in these columns, we tend to ignore science, and we tend to disparage intellectuals – unlike the French who revere theirs, rightly or wrongly :-). WE tend to revere the "man of his hands" or business people. To these we tend to give unqualified and gullible acceptance, (Christ look how everybody piles on when Peter Jackson is ever criticised) and the tall poppy syndrome is usually aimed at intellectuals. Heaven help your average perfesser in this country, if you can't build your own house you're ignored.
there is an (other) excellent piece by Gordon Campbell on this topic...the blog is kindly linked within this site.
I don't see neoliberalism as inherently masculine. After all, it guts that most masculine of areas, trade unions.
I largely agree with you.
I also agree with Chris that Ms Catton has been subjected to an obscene level of abuse and her being an attractive young woman may well be part of this.
But I don't think New Zealand grew more sexist with the advent of neo-liberalism. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Of course NZ might have grown even less sexist during the last thirty years if neo-liberalism had not triumphed. There again, perhaps not.
As things stand, we hear a lot about the "glass ceiling" limiting the aspirations of would-be high achieving women but rather less about the concrete ceilings faced by most people of both genders.
The right hates intellectuals- what absolute rubbish! A sweeping generalisation that shows a very lazy thought processes at best.
Her comments about politics are about as relevant as John Key's would be about literature. Or as relevant as some cricketer trying to sell home heating.
She has every right to her opinion and to express it but can hardly expect not to hear contrary opinions also expressed.
... That would be fine if contrary views were brought forward, instead there have just been attacks of Eleanors character and questioning her validity / right to comment on politics in the first place. Perhaps if there was some real discussion by the 'offended' partys about the points raised we might be able to nationally progress the conversation . Instead we are seeing classic bullying by an elite group of males who seem to be backed into corner by the truth.
Apparently Sean Plunkett called her a "traitor". He's become a one-man tabloid. :-)
She's very successfully walking in the footsetps of Marilyn Waring.
The Right, particularly the American right, specialises in character assassination rather than intellectual argument. Not necessarily I think because they have no intellectual rebuttal, but they simply find it more effective. Most of the right wing thinkers with whom you could have a rational argument have disappeared into the maw of Fox news and the like. There. Fixed!
One of New Zealanders' least attractive attributes is their gnawing insecurity about their place in the world. If one of ours is lauded by all and then disowns us overseas, this furore is the natural and inevitable result. At heart it is not about right/left politics, apart perhaps from emphasising New Zealanders' inherent conservatism and defensiveness. It was surprising that a writer of Catton's gifts did not understand this better.
Post a Comment