Tags
Apple, architecture, Ayatollah Khomeini, Canada, gender, generations, Jane Jacobs, Maurice Duplessis, Michel Foucault, modernism, Pierre Trudeau, religion
Among my peers in their twenties and thirties, the word “old-fashioned” seems, well, old-fashioned (unless, tellingly, it’s referring to the cocktail). I rarely hear it anymore. More commonly, to describe something that seems to belong to an earlier time – a rotary-dial telephone, a tabletop Ms. Pac-Man game, a handlebar moustache – the word of choice is “old-school.” As far as I know, this term has its current provenance from hip-hop music, referring to older works from the 1980s, before the genre became completely mainstream. Urban Dictionary, the anarchic oracle of contemporary slang, identifies “old school” as “Anything that is from an earlier era and looked upon with high regard or respect…. Typically, they are highly regarded and sometimes the very thing that started it all.” Compare a definition of “old-fashioned” from Apple’s dictionary widget: “(of a person or their views) favoring traditional and usually restrictive styles, ideas or customs: she’s stuffy and old-fashioned.”
This change in usage can’t be a coincidence. I think of a twentysomething friend of mine whose father is a modernist architect, a devotee of the International Style. He builds the kind of buildings that only architects can love, eminently functional buildings that appear to most people (including his daughter) as merely ugly: what Jane Jacobs famously called a Great Blight of Dullness. When I visit their house, I see at a picture of him on the wall from the 1970s: a dashing, handsome young man, decked out resplendently in the fashions of the age. Once upon a time, it was the trend to be modern.
Moreover, it was the trend for good reason. In the 1970s, “old-fashioned” meant a world where a woman’s place was in the home, where “sodomy” was illegal, where races were segregated – a world that not so long ago had produced the Nazis. When I see the picture of my friend’s father I think of Pierre Trudeau, the dashing, flamboyant Canadian prime minister who legalized homosexuality and contraception and promoted the now-dominant view of Canada as officially bilingual and multicultural – having grown up under the conservative Catholic fascism of Québec’s Maurice Duplessis. Trudeau was one face of Québec’s “Quiet Revolution,” the drastic move within one generation from a church-dominated authoritarian society to a libertine egalitarianism. We owe a debt to the modernists of the ’60s and ’70s and their rejection of the old-fashioned world.
But the 1970s were also the era of Jane Jacobs’s urban criticism, and most notably of Pruitt-Igoe, the 1950s modern St. Louis housing project praised by architectural critics as a grand breakthrough – and demolished as unlivable less than 20 years later, in 1972. While Pruitt-Igoe became the symbol of failed architectural modernism, all over the world there was an increasing reaction against modernism’s blandness, sterility and simple ugliness. By the end of the ’70s, the trend was to historic preservation. The modest but pleasing buildings of the early twentieth century no longer seemed old-fashioned. Though the word wasn’t yet used this way, they seemed old-school.
Architecture is the realm where it’s easiest to pinpoint what went wrong with modernism, and why it ended. But the move from “old-fashioned” to “old-school,” from rejecting the old to embracing it, entered far more realms of human endeavour. Above all, we hear little these days of the “secularization thesis,” taken for granted in the early ’70s, which assumed that people were embracing scientific rationalism and moving away from “religion,” whatever that is. A first straw in the wind was the Iranian revolution of 1979, seen as an atavistic aberration by the prevailing intellectuals of the time, but embraced by a young French philosopher named Michel Foucault. Foucault’s philosophy centred around a critique of modernity, which led him to endorse the Ayatollah Khomeini as a reaction against the modern world – for a while at least. You can almost hear him looking at Khomeini and saying “Man, that dude is old school!” Foucault, of course, went on to become one of the best-known philosophers of his generation; and the Iranian revolution is still with us, and inspired many others to embrace what they saw as an older variety of Islam.
I’m not a great admirer of Foucault’s philosophy, but I think I understand the impulse that led him to endorse the Iranian revolution. In Foucault and Khomeini there’s a cautionary tale: to turn the clock back before Trudeau, before the International Style, would be disastrous. And yet I think that my generation feels more acutely the things that are missing from the modernist world: not merely in art and architecture, but in ideas and values. My own intellectual story is a break from the eminently modern philosophy of utilitarianism, turning to much older Buddhist views. Even on gender, where the accomplishments of the modern day are least ambiguous, there’s still something to be said for the values of traditional masculinity. No longer old-fashioned, the old now looks old-school.
What is old-school is not to take the last word’s word on anything. Recognise ‘modern’, ‘new’, ‘advanced’ as the dismal tomb of intelligent inquiry. Shun the ‘improved’ as a probable device for increasing the charge. When did counting by decades start? Is it useful or lazy minded? People are talking about the ’70’s in the way that the 50’s used to be talked about which makes me consider that its probably their parents’ generation that they are impugning. Expect your children to talk about the 90’s and re-discover the New Age as Old School.
Well, again, there’s a balance to be struck: sometimes the new is a genuine improvement, as with gender and some of the other battles fought in the ’60s and ’70s. The trick seems to be finding the right balance, which isn’t easy.
While the troubles of the 1940s may have augmented the appeal of modernist thought (by reducing nostalgia), it’s important to note that the “modernist” movement began much much earlier. It began around 1900, driven in large part by a belief that the old views and approaches no longer apply- no longer relevant to the industrialized world, etc. This is similar in theme to a rejection of the past brutality of war, but not in facts: there was no war there to trigger it.
I wonder how much of the past-rejecting/past-reviving cycle is simply a cycle for cycle’s sake. No solution ever works, so eventually you have to try to (intellectually or physically) tear down the system and build a new one, based on… whatever the system you just tore down wasn’t about.
Blarg, I thought I replied to this before. Hm. Anyway: yes, I agree that it’s a cycle. Modernism’s roots go back in many ways to the Enlightenment and French Revolution; so too, nostalgia for the past is not a new thing, but goes back to Romanticism. In a decade or two we may well start to see a new wave of enthusiasm for technology and the modernist reshaping of society. This time it might be biotech that brings it on – once the Ritalin generation becomes mainstream, transhumanism may really pick up speed.
Old school is about doing stuff and learning stuff and old fashioned is about presenting stuff.
A queer little twist: I now experience nostalgia for modernism. Like Amod, I once lived in a dormitory built by Walter Gropius. (Unlike Amod, I liked it.) Now that I live in a ranch house in California, I miss the hyper-utility of my Gropius room. Virtually every cubic foot of the room was reachable and usable, and I got great light too.
Of course, as with much else in the past, I only see the romance in it now that it’s long gone and my memory has deleted most of the pains in the butt that went with it.
Yeah – that’s one of the twists in “old school” that goes beyond Romanticism; we’re no longer just harkening back to the simple days of the Greeks or the hunter-gatherers. The stylin’ seventies jacket of my friend’s modernist father could easily be called “old school” today.
But no, I don’t miss living in the Gropes one bit. The shelving was very well designed; the fact that we had to go through three locked doors to get to our bathrooms, less so.
Pingback: Caution towards innovation | Love of All Wisdom