'I'd rather be famous than righteous or holy'

‘I’d rather be famous than righteous or holy, any day’ : The Smiths- Frankly Mr Shankly

A rather apt quotation for popular culture I’d say...

Popular culture is responsible for why I can’t be a poet and make a living from it. I would love nothing more to travel Europe in large dresses, staring out of windows, drinking wine and writing about how suicidal I am over the ‘one’. But the rise of Industrialized Britain and consequently Popular culture angered the elites so much so that they applied to art an abstract rhythmic pattern to dilute its accessibility so it would maintain some intellectual value. They saw it worked because no one could understand what the fuck these guys were painting and so they applied this to literature as well. Intertwined within each piece of lyrical excellence was a reference or allusion to another piece of work and so it seems you need to have read every elitist Cultural tradition writer and thoroughly understand every Greek myth and speak fluent Latin and be voiced in all matters of church doctrine, know all the ins and outs of every elitist love triangle and basically know Vagina Wolfe’s medical history to be able to understand the first paragraph of the writings of the then, lowest intellectual abilities. It is this that means the beauty of poetry was maintained over a short period but lost to most and although this was done so to keep its merit, it now means that its place in society has become overly protected and consequently almost eradicated.

I could very well blame the elites but what respectable Tory would ever do such a thing? So instead I blame the Plebeians and troglodytes for harnessing popular culture to a degree that it pushed the mistress of authentic culture, poetry, into the deepest darkest recesses of libraries and instead filled the spaces of these once fabulous writers, with Harry Potter and The Gruffalo. 

Words can't hurt...right?

Language.

I once wrote a poem about language...

Words. By Ellie Wood.

Words: that for which we cannot apologise, rectify or retrieve- a cut so deep.

That which we use to connect, excuse and comfort.

The sharpest tool, the best bandage to east pain and the smoothest of charmers.

The Queen of enigmas and prince of procrastination. King of ambiguity and princess of allure.

The best, worst and often only tool at your disposal.

Words: The genius, wizard, poet, politician, fighter- the average human being.

Attacked, defended and eased,

Infuriated or enlightened.

The champion of champions.

Words: Knowledge, conversation, hope, faith, pledge, truth, lies and trust.

To you, words, I swear, you are forever my indispensible and most faithful friend, assistant and companion.

Words.

As my poem points out, language has many uses and many effects. So how can so many people make throw-away comments not realising the lasting effects or how they make people feel?

I began to think about this as an important issue last week when I began looking at language as an important factor in changing attitudes and values in society, with reference to sex and gender, so I may use this as an example later on. But as a general principle it got me thinking about the power language has and how people seem to harness it in order to project views and opinions, and either diminish or exacerbate prejudice.

Hitler, for example, ultimate symbol of evil but worshipped by so many... how was what he said socially acceptable? He was obviously a wordsmith. Listening to his speeches you can hear his passion but more importantly he’s manipulative. He uses inclusive language for the public; they feel like they have a voice. He praises Germany beyond words it’s emotional and it was more than likely beautiful to hear for a country that had been undergoing such hardship. When he speaks about the ‘Jew problem’ it’s difficult still to fathom how anyone could just accept this but he slipped it in between radically heroic statements about saving Germany which is sneaky and manipulative. The hatred is repugnant to read but he speaks in such a way that’s descriptive and almost poetic with how he describes Jews as a disease, it’s not sane by any means but it shows what power language has if he could take such a ridiculous concept and weave hatred through it and then not even be scared to say these things out loud and THEN people accepted it and continued to love him. A lot is dependent on language. If Hitler isn’t the perfect example of how someone can manipulate a public and breed hatred using language, then there can be no other example.

In addition, it’s interesting to see now, in light of the recent ‘gay marriage’ debate, how attitudes can change.  It seems this is the great civil rights movement of our time. We had the Suffragettes in the late 19^th, early 20^th century, and the black civil rights movement through the 50s and 60s. These movements saw Emelline Pankhurst and Dr Martin Luther King go down in history for their great work and even greater sacrifices. I’m curious to see who may rise from this movement as a figure head. Ellen DeGeneres will forever be the ultimate ambassador of gay marriage, not only because she is gay and married but because she so proves how the sanctity of this institution is so sacred and meaningful when there’s Brittany Spears and Kim Kardashian running around and being married for a matter of days.

What I actually wanted to explore is the thought process in life and in everyday speech with reference to prejudices. One is fine to ‘sit on the fence’ but we were given two terms, linguistic determinism, meaning language shapes our thoughts, and linguistic universalism, meaning our thoughts shapes our language.

On the one hand I whole heartily agree that Linguistic universalism is the term of sense... if one is homophobic in attitudes and values then one shall use narrow and more than likely offensive language to convey this, right?

But is this right? Upon reflection, I don’t think it is. I think when we really look into this our attitudes and values are shaped by our language. We are naturally constrained or freed by language. We use it for so many purposes it cannot be a second thought... even our thought process is done in a language of some kind. So my conclusion on this point is that we, and the language we think in, determine our attitudes to most things. For example, the French have a so much wider vocabulary and often multiple terms for one thing. The abundance of synonyms in this language means that they can give a degree to the thing that they are talking about or rate its importance, intensity etc... It makes it much more expressive, and consequently portrays a stance or opinion, ultimately being interpreted in a tone and concluded as your specific value. Words are obviously our greatest communicator and language is obviously not a secondary thought...it’s a medium.

So when applied to the sex and gender subject, I find that the understanding of a topic and consequently the being ‘okay’ or ‘not okay’ with it, is dependent on language. In today’s society understanding of something different is imperative for the majority of people, although shouldn’t be necessary, and so the language has to be very politically correct and pragmatic and straight forward to avoid any confusion. Confusion leads to questions and stereotypes which lead to prejudice. All of which occurs in the mind but words are responsible for. Leaving the issue unclear and unstable subjects it to ridicule or hate and that’s when we attain inequalities for people that are different.

Ultimately language can cloud or clarify a situation and can therefore be awarded ultimate importance when wanting to persuade, manipulate or change attitudes. 

Margaret Thatcher: Hated for being great. Great for being hated.

I am frequently asked why I think Margaret Thatcher is the best prime minster when so many hate her so passionately. I always answer with a swift sentence about her strong characteristics that reverted England to the strongest stance, i think, since winning World War Two.

But in actuality she was one of the best Prime minsters this country has ever seen, and according to statistics, rather more popular than one might think. So many Tories are known for being the more effective prime ministers in history, but this goes over looked as we are currently on a campaign of hatred for increased university fees, benefit cuts and unemployment. And so many news outlets focus on the negative, when if they took the time to do some research they’d find the following.

Margaret Thatcher is the seventh longest serving Prime minister, serving three terms from 1979-1990.  Only one other of those 7 served in the 20^th century, and of those, 5 were of the Tory or Conservative Party. Winston Churchill, war hero and legend, also a Tory, is the longest serving MP, with 63 years under his belt.

Thatcherism became a strand of Conservatism, focused on economics and free market ideology, how many other Prime ministers left behind an ideology as their legacy? Her time in office saw her enter and leave behind a benefiting economy as net migration increased. It also saw her help to end the Cold War and increase friendly relations with USA, the biggest superpower at the time. In addition she re asserted English power and authority, in a some-what Imperialistic manner, in the Falkland’s and unite Europe. In a time of recession, although unemployment inevitably rose to record highs, she reduced inflation to the highest degrees and there’s direct positive correlation between the state of the economy and her time in office.

Moreover, she flew the flag for Feminism and for a ‘work hard and you shall achieve’ audience, so rare in the Conservative Party. From Grantham, she attended and graduated from Oxford, which she attended on her own merit, and from there changed the world as we know it. Feminists are often heard criticizing Thatcher for a lack of solidarity, failure to help other women and for not acknowledging her debt to feminism, but is it not the greatest thing to see a person of the ‘wrong’ gender and the ‘wrong’ class break the boundaries of middle class, middle aged, white men, politics and to then become the face of that. I also think she did right by not bowing her head to the movement of feminism as this would have subjected her to even more criticisms within her own party. Being a product of feminism is fine until you become a leader because you have to be seen to have gotten there by merit, not political correctness.

 Children of the 80's may have grown up hating her but the fact is after years of growing up to hate men, women were also allowed to be hated. I’m not saying that’s a great thing, I’m saying that’s equal. And that’s what feminism wants right? In the most degrees anyway, equality?

I’ve been taught that there’s no such thing as bad publicity, and Thatcher was horrendously hated for the controversial politics she pursued with such vigor  Her name was everywhere. And there is no such thing as bad publicity... so by being hated, did this do more for Feminism, are we to thank Baroness Thatcher for bearing the brunt of hatred just so a woman would be visible in a position of power? Think on this.

Politics aside...I want to note her passion. Not once have I ever heard a prime minister speak even remotely in the same tone and with such conviction. Ed Milliband struggles to sound like he even knows what he’s saying. He struggles to enunciate or stand with confidence. David Cameron sounds like he’s scared and is daren’t stray from his written speech. And Nick Clegg is just grateful for being around. Margaret Thatcher could argue in an empty room. She made people love or hate her. She was heroic, strong, and powerful. She spoke well, was neither scared nor confused and she above all showed she deserved to be there. Her speeches, like those of Churchill and Harold Macmillan echo through time and are quoted on a regular basis. 

She, like a rare selection of others, said things that shaped the world today and forever more. And yes many prime ministers make changes, shape history and are popular, Tony Blair for example. But Margaret Thatcher had not only the love of the people, but the anger and hatred, and there is no weapon so powerful for the winds of change than that of a furious public. Think of the greatest revolutions, of popular culture, of film even. She did, in my eyes, and a few others, many great things... but it is the controversy that makes her the greatest prime mister that ever was and will be...until my turn obviously.