Mark Judge is a conservative who argues that most conservatives don’t understand pop music, completely missing or misconstruing its meaning. He offers a reading of two music videos, Madonna’s “Like a Prayer,” which he says is a positive treatment of Christian imagery, and Lady Gaga’s “Alejandro,” which he says is fascist.
Lady Gaga is no Madonna. That some conservatives are conflating the two performers is yet another sign of the pop culture (and even religious) illiteracy of the right. I myself am a conservative, and it always demoralizes me when people on the right fumble the ball on popular culture, particularly in the field of pop music.
Robert Bork once referred to the industrial gloom freaks Nine Inch Nails as rap. Reagan-era Interior Secretary James Watt attempted to postpone the Beach Boys Fourth of July concert, thinking that the somnolent surfers would cause trouble. And, despite how much I’ve begged and pleaded, the Weekly Standard and National Review will not cover pop music, which I consider a beautiful form of spiritual art.
Now, taking a lead from Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, everyone is comparing Gaga to Madonna. To me Madonna will always be a mediocre talent, but one of her better songs is “Like a Prayer,” which came out in 1986. Many conservative culture warriors wrongly considered the video for “Like a Prayer” blasphemous, and are now juxtaposing it with a new video by pop star Lady Gaga. In the video for her song “Alejandro,” Gaga is dressed in a red latex nun costume. She swallows a rosary, and is depicted in scenes of sadomasochistic sex and Nazi marching troops. As night follows day, conservatives went nuts. Donohue called Lady Gaga a “Madonna wannabe.” The rest of the right wing photosphere fell into place.
They will miss a crucial fact: Madonna’s video for “Like a Prayer” is an intelligent and even devout meditation on grace, love and conscience. Lady Gaga's is lazy trash.
As I will explore in my forthcoming book “A Tremor of Bliss: Sex, Catholicism, and Rock ‘n’ Roll,” Madonna’s video is actually a powerful depiction of the vitality of the Catholic saints and their ability to intercede in our lives and give us gifts of courage. In the video, Madonna witnesses a black man falsely accused of a crime. Terrified of the racists in the town, she flees into a church, where she prays to St. Martin de Porres, a black saint. She falls asleep and in her dream the statue of the saint actually comes to life, becoming her lover. She wakes up filled with a new bravery. She fingers the real criminals, and ends the video jubilantly dancing with a gospel choir.
When “Like a Prayer” was released, it was completely misunderstood by conservatives. A bishop condemned it. So did Donohue. On the other side, liberals mindlessly defended Madonna without understanding the message of the video. The only truly coherent analysis came from Fr. Andrew Greeley, a liberal Catholic priest. “Like a Prayer” was blasphemous, wrote Greeley in America magazine, “only for the prurient and the sick who come to the video determined to read their own twisted sexual hang-ups into it. Only for those who think that sexual passion is an inappropriate metaphor for divine passion (and thus are pretty hard on Hosea, Jesus, Saint Paul, Saint Bernard of Clairvaux and Saint Teresa of Avila).”
Lada Gaga’s video for “Alejandro” is not just slightly dissimilar to “Like a Prayer” – it’s like a fascistic antipode. There is no moral story, no call to conscience. The very language of the bodies is different. In “Like a Prayer,” Madonna and the gospel choir dance with freedom and individual joy. They are powered with the power of the Holy Spirit, which gave Madonna grace the courage to fully respond the call from her conscience. In “Alejandro” the dancing is militaristic, joyless. The scenes of sadomasochism are cold and dehumanizing; they reek of fascism. The entire thing is cold.
We’ve gotten to a point in our culture where we expect the “avant-garde” left to embrace absolutely anything that gives them the delicious frisson of transgression — no matter how tired and, well, conservative their tropes have become. Pop singer Katy Perry was right when she said “Using blasphemy as entertainment is as cheap as a comedian telling a fart joke.”
But I want better from my conservative friends. I became a conservative because of the ideas of the movement. Irving Kristol, Thomas Sowell, and Midge Decter are people who rely on facts, common sense, and age-old wisdom about the nature of the human person to come to conclusions about politics. But they are like the worst knee-jerk lefty when it comes to pop culture. I fear most of them have not listened to a record since Pat Boone was a star.
via Guest Voices: Lady Gaga is no Madonna – On Faith at washingtonpost.com.
Talk about Madonna and Lady Gaga if you want, but what about his claim that conservatives don’t understand pop culture? Is that necessarily a bad thing? I agree that there is quite a bit of fascism in pop culture–not to mention all kinds of free-floating violence, racism, and sexism–which the left seems to gobble up indiscrimately. Maybe the left doesn’t understand it either, while still embracing it. Can you think of other pop culture artifacts that, while seeming rebellious, actually have a conservative subtext?
{ 1 trackback }
{ 29 comments… read them below or add one }
A pop icon who’s always intrigued me has been Clint Eastwood. His movies, while very violent, have always had good and evil presented with crystal clarity. He gets better with age. His latest offering (well, next-to-latest since “Invictus”), Gran Torino is an excellent movie including a priest who is depicted not in the typical dismissive, stereotypical Hollywood depiction of religious figures (perhaps I should say Christian religious figures) and a sacrificial crucifixion at the end. As well as a great character played by Eastwod himself.
Bob Dylan is another. His latest, “Together Through Life” can most certainly (though not necessarily) be understood as addressing the relationship between Christ and the Church.
If conservatives are properly able to distinguish or differentiate the Kingdom of the left and the Kingdom of the right then it is in fact possible to understand pop culture.
Understanding pop culture does ultimately mean surrounding yourself with it. Conservatives are less likely to do so, and as Dr. Veith suggests, I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. To be fair, though, quick judgments coming from a shallow understanding are pretty common on the right. (Don’t get me wrong, they’re common on the left too, but they tend to have a different flavor when it comes to pop culture.)
On a side note, I don’t think she’s quite precise in saying that sexual passion is an appropriate metaphor for divine passion. Marriage certainly is, and sexual passion is certainly an inseparable part of that metaphor, but to reduce marriage to mere sexual passion and then so use it makes that use poor and shallow. Divine passion is hardly an occasional fling, after all. Maybe that’s why people were scandalized by the Madonna song and didn’t get what she was trying to say. Could they be reading something illicit into the sexual display in the video that wasn’t intended to be there? Perhaps so. But given the attitudes of our culture in general and Madonna in particular when it comes to sex, I don’t think one has to necessarily conclude that it can only be “twisted sexual hang-ups” that lead to such an interpretation.
I don’t know. I still think fart jokes are kinda funny.
Cultural artifact: “Sweet Home Alabama”
Portraying a Catholic saint as Madonna’s lover is a REVERENT treatment of the Catholic faith? Am I missing something here? If implicitly accusing an icon of that church of fornication is reverence, I’d hate to see blasphemy!
I’m afraid that Mr. Judge is incorrect here; a big reason that many conservatives reject much of pop culture and music is because we do, in fact, “get it.” We understand, for example that accusing a saint of fornication is not reverence, but libel–or even blasphemy. I would even go further and suggest that as one becomes a part of pop culture, one is LESS able to see it for what it is. One’s moral sensitivity is simply worn down by the abuse it takes from the likes of Ms. Ciccione.
Yes, Bike I have a problem with that assessment myself. What you have is a seemingly positive depiction actually undermining the faith there. The message is racism is bad, fornication is good. The message that racism is bad could have been made without promoting fornication.
Popular culture is popular entertainment. It’s fun to enjoy some of it. But it’s ridiculous to take any of it too seriously. As if popular culture actually changes society, rather than responding to changes in what people like (taste) and accept (morals). As if works of popular culture are like the works of serious thinkers, whose names are unknown to most of us, but who do actually affect our institutions (schools, churches, government).
I don’t think that conservatives “don’t get pop culture”. There are many, as Frank @2 pointed out, that have an understanding. There are others who are reactionary, like those who panicked in the ’80s with backmasking and those who pulled Harry Potter off library shelves.
I liked Madonna’s video for “Like a Prayer.” I know the song is not Christian, but it was at least tasteful and didn’t portray Christianity negatively.
I would mention the Harry Potter series as having somewhat a conservative subtext. Power corrupts, if you don’t have the moral fiber to prevent the corruption.
I think there are some conservative glints in pop culture, but they are few and far between. Possibly because pop culture is popular and conservativism is rarely such.
So here it is. I listen to the radio. At times I like pop music, at times it makes me want to puke. And then I realize I am getting older, and maybe a bit hypocritical. I don’t think you can ignore it.
I also don’t think the analogy of Lady Gaga to Madonna is all that inept. Calling her a wannabe Madonna, does not mean that she is pushing the exact same values. It is actually to denigrate Lady Gaga, for not measuring up.
But they do carry quite a bit in common, including overly sexualized lyrics and funky costumes, while playing dance music. That there are a few dissimilarities, like the fact that even in her late, (what 40s? early 50s?) Madonna is still a better looking woman, even if she doesn’t wear thongs in her music videos. That does not mean Lady Gaga does not aspire to Madonna’s success, or that she is essentially traveling the same path that Madonna blazed a generation ago, perhaps with a few detours.
Tom @7,
Are you serious? You don’t think the likes of Lady Gaga don’t have an influence on our children? You think the guys that write the boring text books the kids scribble Lady Gaga all over, have more power? Dream on.
I’m not saying the serious thinkers don’t influence society to a degree, but you would be seriously remiss to think that the secular doctrines are not drummed into the heads of our society by the hymns of popular culture.
Bror, my point is: don’t get things backwards. The decadence in popular culture responds to a decline in the tastes and morals of the public. It doesn’t cause that decline. Though, yes, at some point it becomes mutually reinforcing.
Lady Gaga is a poser. Nothing more, nothing less.
I’ll be honest I can’t stand most pop music, but I am a self described metalhead and I am very much into symphonic metal and hardcore. However, I think we are missing a point.
What we are witnessing is the right being 20 years behind the times in using victimization. They are looking for things to be offended about so they can play the victim. In saying that, Donahue is one of the most pathetic examples of this trend. Everything, is something to be offended about. You know what? He ought to grow up and grow some thick skin. If these people want to go about making pathetically stupid spectacles of themselves don’t dignify them with your time. People like Lady Gaga live for your indignation, and the best thing to do with a fool like her is walk away without giving a response.
Tom@11,
I suppose it is often hard to tell whether art is reflecting reality, or influencing culture. But one thing it does do is popularize aspects here and there. It would be wrong to assume at anyone point, in other words, that Pop music is not only reflecting culture, but influencing it.
Sorry for a long post, but this is a topic I have spent a great deal of time thinking and praying about (Christians and culture, not Madonna or Lady Gaga). And, since I am currently preparing a sermon on the topic, I have an overflow of thoughts.
For starters, I think Jesus’ command to his apostles in Matthew 10:16 is one of the most helpful verses on this topic: “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” (ESV) This is a helpful principle to keep at the center of the discussion (and a powerful juxtaposition of images). At what point in seeking to be wise have we compromised our innocence? At what point in preserving innocence have we become unwise?
In this case, I have never seen a Lady Gaga music video (or any music videos for about three years), but it sounds like if I had, I would have more than compromised my innocence, seeing simulated sexual activities and near-pornographic self-exposure. Perhaps others can view this without compromising their innocence, I cannot. On the other hand, not seeing this particular artifact of pop culture has not prevented me from seeing that our culture is obsessed with sex and tends to value exhibitionism over art, particularly in it’s female purveyors of pop culture (see, Brittney Spears or countless other examples… or better yet, don’t). The lesson was learned, hopefully some wisdom gained, but no innocence lost. In fact, wisdom requires that I not keep teaching myself the same lesson with every new iteration, but that I move on to more productive lessons, like how to teach and model a Biblical understanding of purity and modesty to a culture immersed in promiscuity and self-promotion.
A few other principles/verses that can be helpful: Romans 14:1-3 “As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.”
- God does not call us all to the same practices when engaging culture. Do not turn your celebration of the Gospel in your own life into the Law for someone else.
1 Corinthians 6:12 “‘All things are lawful for me,’ but not all things are helpful. ‘All things are lawful for me,’ but I will not be enslaved by anything.”
- A counterbalance to the above, just because something isn’t sinful in itself doesn’t mean it is fine and dandy. Is the consumption of that particular morsel of culture helpful to you in your sanctified walk? Is it something that has a tendency to be enslaving? If the answer to the first is “no” (it is not helping me to better reflect Christ) and the answer to the second is “yes” (i.e. – the well-documented addictive and accelerating nature of soft-core pornography), then I imagine there are better uses for your time.
In the end, this kind of a careful, prayerful engagement with culture (even if it leads to abstention) serves to make us both wise and innocent. All the while, we can thank God that because of the cross, He is our wisdom and our innocence.
If this was a tangent, then more to Dr. Veith’s last question would be this ongoing pursuit by John Miller on National Review http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDJkN2M0YThlMGIxZTQ1ZGM1NDZiNmVjMmE2ZmFiMWU=
I’d disagree with Tom regarding whether pop culture leads, or merely reflects. For example, while certainly our culture was changing prior to Mr. Presley, it was he who made it respectable to swing one’s hips on stage. The same can be said about Ms. Ciccione setting the stage for Ms. Germanotta to do things far more suggestive than Elvis ever dared….
So is it pop artists leading, or following….well, yes to both.
Well Rob, I’m not sure I have any innocence outside of Christ left to be compromised.
Though I do try to limit my exposure to that which arouses baser thoughts, I don’t beat my self up for happening to see someone dressed skimpily. Lady Gaga for one, I find repulsive on all accounts, so not much temptation there. On the other hand baser thoughts have been aroused even when women are wearing quite modest clothing….
So long story short, the forgiveness of sins in Christ is the only hope I have left. The law took my innocence a long, long time ago. It is hard for me to watch women exploit themselves in this way, it is even harder for me to see them encourage my sheep who listen to this stuff, to exploit themselves in like manner.
Pop music reflects the artist who creates it. It has the potential to catch on because of mass marketing, which is why it often catches on. In fact, it seems almost anything, no matter how crass or inane can catch on via mass marketing. It is more interesting to see what doesn’t catch on despite expensive all out marketing campaigns. When you see the stuff that is pushed at audiences, it seems those promoting it take a perverse pleasure in testing the limits of human gullibility by seeing if even the most outrageous and disgusting behavior will be embraced. While they laugh on their way to the bank, surely the talented manipulators grow in their disgust for the lack of discernment and lack of revulsion at their work among those consuming it.
I submit that Tom is quite correct in his propaedeutic regarding the relative importance of popular culture. In short, pop culture is inherently timebound, and any lasting contribution from our society (or any society!) will come not from the ranks of the populace, but from the realms of “high” art and philosophy.
Example: the middle ages were replete with popular, secular music, most of which was exceedingly bawdy, such that even Gaga-lovers would probably blush at many of the lyrics and themes. And most of it (the little that is extant, in any case) is only known to scholars of Medieval music. And yet most Americans have at least heard about, say, Gregorian chant and Aquinas. Still suffering the after-effects of the sexual revolution, we are inclined to assign overwhelming importance to the Beatles (whom I like anyway) and their kind who played some part in shaping and being shaped by the trends of that epoch. But a century from now, do we honestly think that the Beatles will remain in the forefront of the public consciousness? Surely they won’t have eclipsed the enduring achievements (good or bad) of British high art. Popular culture has a short shelf-life, and, accordingly, a proportionally reduced significance. Robespierre (a popular leader and thinker in his brief day), in other words, read his Rousseau; and we still read our Rousseau seriously; Robespierre is merely of historical interest.
As far as whether popular art shapes the culture or vice versa, this is a true “chicken and egg” problem. They are, in short, interlocking variables, and the debate as to which shapes which seems a bit fruitless.
Gene,
Forgive the off-subject comment, but I couldn’t find a contact/email link. Here’s a thought-provoking article, appropriate for this blog, about Thomas Kinkade’s work (old vs. new) and the desire for Heaven.
I’d say Lady Gaga is attempting to be a satire of a pop star, and she is milking it for ALL she’s worth. That being said, I’m not really a fan. She has a decent enough voice, but she’s trying way too hard, and isn’t NEARLY as “cutting edge” or “innovative” as people think she is. She’s just riding on the coattails of many who came before her, and I think she knows that. I haven’t seen her new music video, nor do I care to. I’ve never been fond of most pop music, or much of pop culture. I just haven’t found any lasting or resonating connection with it like I have with other things, like my books or my indie music. It’s also why I really don’t watch TV. There’s nothing on to grab my attention and tell me “this is good, yo.”
That being said, I find Katy Perry’s criticism of Lady Gaga’s “Alejandro” kind of interesting considering her song “I kissed a girl” (which is a whole other discussion, I suppose).
Cincinnatus @ 18, you’re probably right about it being a “chicken or the egg” problem. But then, it would still be important not to downplay the way a decline in the tastes and morals of the public contributes equally to decadence.
Cincinnatus,
I don’t think this is about what is going to last. or what is going to continue to influence culture over a long period of time. Sure I doubt most of these songs are going to last much longer than a generation or two. And they will probably be replaced in coming generations by equally vacuous yet sinfilled lyrics. That is not the question.
The question is, is this music influencing our culture as it is now. And the answer can’t really be anything but yes.
But there is another side to this. The songs of the middle ages may have long been forgotten. That does not mean that their influence is gone.
Go to Sweden today. Not very many Christian believers left there. Many of them probably would not know the meaning of pietism. But for one who knows the history, you still see the influence of pietism over the society.
The sins of the fathers are visited to the third and fourth generations.
Bror has much the better of this argument. Popular music of our time both reflects and influences the dominant view that we are autonomous beings who get to choose our own “lifestyles” and assorted forms of sexual indulgence. Both Madonna and Lady Gaga are malign influences on impressionable young people, along with not a few grownups who wish to stay cool.
This is actually old hat. Plato once wrote in the Republic that Musical training is a more potent instrument than any other, because rhythm and harmony find their way into the inward places of the soul, on which they mightily fasten, imparting grace, and making the soul of him who is rightly educated graceful, or of him who is ill-educated ungraceful.
Aristotle remarked in the Politics that Any musical innovation is full of danger to the whole state, and ought to be prohibited . . . when modes of music change, the fundamental laws of the state always change with them.
Mark Judge is hilarious. He must be taking cues from Madonna and Lady Gaga. By which I mean that he has learned that the best way to sell your product is to get people talking about your product, or at the very least, about you. And the best way to do that is through controversy.
Or did you all miss Judge’s line “As I will explore in my forthcoming book …”?
Strike a pose, Mr. Judge, there’s nothing to it.
Sure, you can make a case that the “Like a Prayer” video was a “powerful depiction of the vitality of the Catholic saints and their ability to intercede in our lives” blah blah blah. But you could also argue that “Like a Virgin” is merely a contemplation on the Theotokos, where the line “touched for the very first time” refers clearly to the Annunciation and “been saving it all for you, cause only love can last” expounds upon Mary’s role as co-redemptrix. But that would be ridiculous. Or … controversial?
Whatever. The guy’s just selling a book. And that’s just one video (which, as videos often do, seems to ignore the actual lyrical content to a large degree). The song certainly is catchy, though.
As for Lady Gaga and Madonna, I don’t get the impression that they have any deeper symbolism behind the elements in their videos or lyrics other than what can be easily discerned: (1) they’re from a Catholic background, (2) they’re intrigued by the mystical/spiritual, but not by anything actually Christian, (3) they like to incite controversy (best way to do that is always sex+religion), and (4) they enjoy provocative fashion and good dancing. Oh, and (5) lots of sex. In that regard, Lady Gaga is clearly following in Madonna’s footsteps. And Mr. Donahue, et al., are clearly taking the bait. Which would seem to be part of everyone’s game plan. After all, Bill Donohue is largely playing the same game: get your name out there by saying ridiculous things.
As to conservatives and pop culture, I kind of thought the answer was obvious. Cultural “conservatives”, at least, have spent how many decades insulating themselves from the influence of all those “bad” people, in the process building a nice little bubble. All they’ve done in the process is to construct their own pop culture, which has many of the same problems as they one they rejected, but it leaves them fairly unaware of how to respond to the more popular culture.
Talk about Madonna and Lady Gaga if you want, but what about his claim that conservatives don’t understand pop culture? Is that necessarily a bad thing? I agree that there is quite a bit of fascism in pop culture–not to mention all kinds of free-floating violence, racism, and sexism–which the left seems to gobble up indiscrimately. Maybe the left doesn’t understand it either, while still embracing it. Can you think of other pop culture artifacts that, while seeming rebellious, actually have a conservative subtext?
Dr. Veith,
Are you agreeing with Mr. Judge when he says that conservatives do not understand pop culture? And then why would it not necessarily be a bad thing for them not to understand it? There seems to be an equivocation of indulgence and understanding here, as if my ability to decide on something’s worth in every case, especially where pop culture is concerned, is to listen/watch/eat the thing itself multiple times until I feel I know all its components and appeal.
I think conservatives do misunderstand pop culture and I believe that that is a bad thing: not because, if they understood it, they would be more “open” to the good things pop culture has to offer, but more broadly because, if they understood it, they would not only have a better foundation for addressing that culture but would become productively angrier, and might have more potent and undermining things to say about trash than “it’s ungodly.”
I’m also uncomfortable with a search for artifacts that were “seemly rebellious” but have a “conservative subtext.” This implies that anything from which we can derive such a subtext wasn’t, in fact, rebellious. It’s also a tricky project, because anytime we examine something in the past with a view to preserving something good about it, we are salvaging it as a conservative artifact. The real question needs to be against what things art can properly rebel; with that standard in mind, we can much more easily classify the virtue of past artifacts. (We would also need to couch that investigation in the context of pop culture, not any culture; then the question would be, against what things can art properly rebel insofar as it is popularly appealing – that’s a discussion I’m not qualified to enter!)
Cincinnatus,
Pop culture may be time-bound, but the souls that cling to it, obsess over it, and worship it are not. Just because we’re not going to see a Sistine Chapel painted with images of Madonna and St. Martin de Porres, it doesn’t mean that it’s not important for Christians to take notice. If Christians are going to bring souls to Christ, they need to offer a clear alternative to a sex-crazed pop culture. I mean, I don’t really see to many temple prostitutes around anymore, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t important enough for the prophets to clearly denounce in scripture. You definitely don’t see them saying “This is a passing fad, and we’ll see it eventually pass away. Might as well concentrate on the high art and culture in our society.”
Do conservatives understand pop culture? For the most part, no. I’ve seen some pretty hilarious columns of otherwise extremely intelligent men like George Will try to tackle topics like ripped jeans to pathetic ends. I don’t really think this is a bad thing for conservatives, because conservatives have better things to concentrate on.
For Christians however, I think the important part of offering a clear alternative to pop culture is to know the gospel, not necessarily know pop culture. It would be nice if we have some pointed critiques, because those are always helpful to turn to. But in the end, it’s the eternal and supernatural appeal of the gospel that is persuasive and attractive, not a scathing denunciation of frivolous and bad art.
If conservatives are not getting involved with pop culture, well then they are the only ones who are not.
My absolute pet peeve is to listen to the News and hear who won American Idol, or who is left on Survivor. Do people not know the difference between fantasy and reality??? Meanwhile our enemies are plotting their next attack, but we’re attached to our boob tubes.
One can’t even enter the facebook realm without encountering a mass of mediocrity. Do a facebook search and type in the letter “M.” What comes up? Michael Jackson! Not a world leader. Not even Michelle Obama. Pop reigns once again.
In our churches, bad, repetitive, shallow pop music is emulated. The soloists up front hold their mics the same way their favorite pop idol does. We don’t sing “Holy, Holy, Holy” because we’re too busy repeating, “I want to see you; I want to touch your face.”
I can’t even get on my computer without the three latest pop queens popping up on my screen with a flashed query, “Who’s the hottest??”
So if the conservatives want to be the only ones ignoring, or even just misunderstanding, the pop culture, more power to them.
Booklover (@27), at the risk of missing the rest of your point, when I go to the Facebook search box and type in an M, all I get back is a list of my friends whose names begin with, well, M. Is it possible that you’ve become a fan of Michael Jackson on Facebook?
Yes, tODD, Michael and I go way back.
Actually, if only your repertoire of friends comes up when you type in a letter on facebook search, then you are lucky. When I do that, sometimes the friends come up, sometimes friends of friends come up, and other times the most POPular item comes up. Hence Michael Jackson. Although I see now where Mafia Wars is beating him out.