Cultural infantilism. Escapism as abdication

[Astro Pen]

Oh it's harmless escapism. Or is it?

My first inkling of this question was way back in the 90s when I was commuting by train into London and noticed a surprising number of adults reading Harry Potter. The Le Carres, Barbara Taylor Bradfords, and John Updikes seemed to me to have disappeared.

The more I looked at movie listings the more comic book characters like Batman and Transformers seemed to dominate. Looking at Japan things were slipping even faster. Their culture seemed to be sliding into Hello Kitty, adult Pokemon fans and young women in their 20s wearing rabbit I ears. (yes I know LoL)
In reading, fantasy full of spells and dragons seemed to rapidly eclipse sci-fi.

Here is an article on Japanese infantilised culture and how it is becoming pervasive in the west. Interesting I thought.
Where does it lead when a society recedes into eternal childhood rather than bite the bullet and engage in deep thinking ?

Cute Gets Creepy: Examining the Consequences of Cute Culture - Post Bubble Culture

Japan has developed a reputation for cute. The Sanrio Company has ensured the worldwide presence of the cutest creature around, Hello Kitty. Sanrio is a company that churns out the cute to the tune of $1 billion a year5. Cute has become a movement, but that comes with multiple implications...

postbubbleculture.blogs.wm.edu

 

[AllanR]

In the '40s hard sci fi was considered infantile.

 

[hitmouse]

I dont think Harry Potter is a good example of cultural infantilism. It is fairly sophisticated stuff which happens to be accessible to children, much as is Phillip Pullman, Tolkein, AA Milne, Kenneth Graham, or Saint Exupery. Certainly more to it than your average Barbara Taylor Bradford or Robert Ludlum.

 

[Danny McG]

IMO what used to take place was people at home reading 'kids literature' and during the daily commute they were reading serious adult books to look the part.

Nowadays people couldn't care less what others think and publicly read whatever they fancy.

It's not infantilism, it's being more open in society

 

[Foxbat]

Could it be that we are so surrounded by devices and platforms that we are becoming more hedonistic in our nature and less inclined towards deeper thinking, and perhaps the cultural infantilism is simply a symptom of this rather than the malaise itself?

Quite frankly, I’m surprised you can’t get Arsewipe And Go on smartphone.

 

[JunkMonkey]

There's nothing wrong with escapist lit and I'm as guilty as hell of reading far too many comics (and even Harry Potter)* but I think there is a general societal change to towards infantilism. My own personal hate in this respect is having inanimate objects address me albeit only in writing but I've read enough Philip K Dick to know what comes next. Product wrappers are always telling me, "Pop me in the fridge! I'll last longer", or "Open me this end!", or "I'm delicious with..." I'm turning into one of those mad bastards that used to frighten me as a kid angrily muttering to themselves in shops. "You're not fecking telling me what to do - you're a bag of tomatoes. You don't get a first person pronoun. You're an IT! I know you'll last longer in the fridge I'm not a fecking total moron."


*In my defence I will say that most of them are in French as I'm trying to teach myself the language. (The fact that I only want to learn French so I can read their comic books is a wee bit of a self-defeating circular argument but I'm getting old; I haven't got time to rationalise such selfishness.)

 

[Valtharius]

Concurring with the above comments, let us not conflate realism with depth or its absence with shallowness.

 

[Toby Frost]

I think that article mixes several things that probably deserve discussion on their own: the Japanese attitude to cuteness and women; anti-feminism in America; and the enjoyment of "childish" things by adults. That's a lot to talk about, some of it probably against the forum rule against politics. Off the top of my head, I don't see why it's more childish to enjoy, say, Star Wars than non-genre trash like Love Island. There's a lot of stuff out there that doesn't do much for me, and I'm really tired of superhero stories, but I'm not going to say that people shouldn't be enjoying it.

 

[Ambrose]

Was it CS Lewis who pointed out that it is jailers who are the most concerned about escapism?

 

[Wayne Mack]

I did not find the article convincing. As for me, I feel no guilt in liking Spongebob and the Muppets.

 

[Montero]

Over the last couple of years I've been re-finding books I liked from my teens - if I can remember them for that long they are definitely worth a re-visit. Particular stars have been Ronald Welch's Carey books - historical novels following members of a family from Knight Crusader to World War 1. They are excellently written and informative - a little dated in attitudes in a couple of places, but well worth the re-read.
There is a difference between infantilism and a really well written story. I think a lot of the better books aimed for ages below adult work really hard on good story telling. I don't know if it is that YA are less tolerant of anything that is not really engaging. Or maybe they are just not interested in the investigation of themes kind of novels - I'm thinking of the more literary end like Handmaiden's Tale (which I rapidly bounced onto the never again pile).
To me, the best storytelling books are multi-layered with an easy to read story as the most obvious thing, but with more information and social commentary in there for those with the mind to see it. Terry Pratchett as ever being one example.
And regarding Ronald Welch's books they have a variety of main characters and are a far cry from cookie cutter chiselled jaw and high courage, by gad sir. One book - Ensign Carey - has as billiard's sharp as the main character. The English Civil War main character is gentle and bookish and really doesn't want to go to war.
So you can do some reasonably deep thinking, and challenge people's expectations, while also entertaining them.
I have never been a fan of books that are deep/challenging/innovative for the sake of being deep/challenging/innovative.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Was it CS Lewis who pointed out that it is jailers who are the most concerned about escapism?

Before I read your post I was trying to remember whether it was Tolkien or LeGuin who said that. Anyway, whichever one of the three it was (or somebody else), they made a very good point.

 

[AllanR]

CS Lewis said it was Tolkien Who Are the People Most Opposed to Escapism? Jailors! – Quote Investigator

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

It turns out that LeGuin used a similar argument (but it does indeed seem to be based on Tolkien's analogy):

1. Fantasy is escapist, and that is its glory. If a soldier is imprisoned by the enemy, don’t we consider it his duty to escape?…if we value the freedom of the mind and soul, if we’re partisans of liberty, then it’s our plain duty to escape, and to take as many people with us as we can.
   The Language of the Night: Essays on Fantasy and Science Fiction (1979), paraphrasing a passage from J. R. R. Tolkien's essay ‘On Fairy-Stories’; see Tolkien

 

[JunkMonkey]

So we're all agreed; escapism in itself is not a bad thing. We're all individually free to enjoy the pleasures of reading and watching childish/childlike/wish-fulfilling fiction. But when the whole of society does it (and start deriding the growns-ups in the room for telling them truths they don't want to hear) then I think we're heading for trouble - or on Facebook.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I don't think we should confuse escapism and infantilism. Though they may overlap at times, they are not at all the same thing. For instance, in the case of an authoritarian government (or religion, or any other authoritarian institution) they would no doubt love to infantilize their citizens or followers, to the extent that they look up to their leaders as the wise all-knowing parents who will always tell them the truth, so that they need only to follow what they are told and do no thinking for themselves. Stories and mythologies might grow up around thosee leaders that have the flavor of escapist literature, but the similarities will only be superficial. The heroic roles will always belong to the leaders. Whereas in fantasy and science fiction and adventure stories of all sorts, it is the individual who grows into heroism ... or occasionally doesn't, but even then the story is really about people rather than institutions. As a rule, I think that authoritarians would not like the vast bulk of "escapist" literature because it teaches the reader to think, "Well, things could be different. They don't have to be the way they are."

Also, most fantasy and science fiction is about the challenges of individual responsibility. Not just doing what you are told, or letting other people do all the doing, but making up your own mind and then shouldering what needs to be done. Take The Lord of the Rings, which, despite what some prominent writers would have us believe, does not let off the "good guys" too easily. Every one of the Hobbits, for instance, has experienced suffering and fear and sorrow and loss by the end. Frodo and Sam go through the worst of it, of course, but Merry and Pippin are far from unscathed. With Merry, Pippin, and Sam, the things they go through force them to grow up and grow into responsibility. Frodo who carries the greatest burdens is so deeply wounded he can no longer live in Middle Earth, and has to give up everything he fought for, while others enjoy the benefits. Even a character like Aragorn, who is already a (very) responsible adult of (very) mature years, faces agonizing choices between competing responsibilities that face him. (The Silmarillion if full of tragic tales of individuals who, when faced with such choices, chose wrong, and Aragorn, as we learn, was brought up on those tales. He knows what a wrong choice can mean, yet he also knows that it is necessary to make a choice and see it through.)

 

[The Big Peat]

Infantilism might be the wrong word for describing a generation that cleaves to media frequently aimed at younger people anyway. Not all about youth is infantile and childish, or reluctant to engage in deep thinking. Youth is also questioning and rebellion and optimism and idealism, all activities with connections to deep thinking. People can dismiss Harry Potter as a book for those not wanting to grow up or think, but it is a book with a great many questions, many of them about what sort of world we want to grow up to be part of.

As for the idea this generation is somehow different and lesser for watching superhero movies, and not just following in the footsteps of generations that watched James Bond or 80s action films, well, that seems a rather odd idea to me.

As genre fic fans, we know the world are full of people who judge the quality of thinking based on its trappings rather than the thoughts themselves. We've been on the receiving end of it. To turn around and apply the same to the next generation of genre fans because they are not conforming with expectations strikes me as a sad state of affairs; I would suggest that if the younger generations were truly infantile, they would continue to ensure they met standard and wouldn't dare to define for themselves what adulthood should look like.

 

[JunkMonkey]

Not all about youth is infantile and childish, or reluctant to engage in deep thinking. Youth is also questioning and rebellion and optimism and idealism, all activities with connections to deep thinking.

Youthful rebellion isn't always about deep thinking. A lot of it (and I speak as the parent of three teenage kids) is about "f*ck you, old farts" and following the herd, tearing down whatever is deemed in need of tearing down (or standing up for whatever it is fashionable to stand up for) this week. Recently my kids, and a lot of their cohort, have been tearing down the things I agree need tearing down and standing up for the things that need standing up for so I'm not complaining. (Proud to see one of my kids on the TV at the particularly wonderful Kenmure Street stand off.)

What I find worrying is that things like 'flagship' science programmes like Horizon seem to be aimed at nine year olds with short attention spans and everything, but everything now has to be turned into a competition with ADHD cutting. The days when AP Taylor could talk for half an hour, direct to camera, giving a history lecture (without notes) and get massive ratings is way past. Don't get me wrong - I think Horrible Histories is fun. I have learned stuff. But when that's ALL that's on the menu...

Actually there may well be more but a few years ago I go so fed up with being patronised by the Tarquins, Jocastas, and Piers running British television I stopped watching it.

As for the idea this generation is somehow different and lesser for watching superhero movies, and not just following in the footsteps of generations that watched James Bond or 80s action films, well, that seems a rather odd idea to me.

Me too.

 

[The Big Peat]

Youthful rebellion isn't always about deep thinking. A lot of it (and I speak as the parent of three teenage kids) is about "f*ck you, old farts" and following the herd, tearing down whatever is deemed in need of tearing down (or standing up for whatever it is fashionable to stand up for) this week. Recently my kids, and a lot of their cohort, have been tearing down the things I agree need tearing down and standing up for the things that need standing up for so I'm not complaining. (Proud to see one of my kids on the TV at the particularly wonderful Kenmure Street stand off.)

Sure, but what exists that is always about deep thinking? You can sit a bunch of people down to watch a thirty minute lecture of wonderfully thought provoking stuff and half the people there will just daydream their way through. You can read a great satire and come away just giggling at the jokes, see something incredible and just shrug it all away. Etc.etc.

My point here would be that it's not always not about deep thinking, rather than it always is.

 

[Montero]

Regarding documentaries, we tend to watch by presenter - so Simon Schama, Simon Montefiori, Lucy Worsely, Ben Fogle, Adam Henson, Kate Humble, Jim Alkalili and Alice Roberts. Probably a couple more. All analytical and clear and some at times critical of mainstream view.

Regarding escapism sf and fantasy style - I think it can regenerate your optimism, and replenish your imagination - so you can picture doing something yourself. Also can lead to inventions - some of which still haven't really hit the main stream like flying cars, and some which have, like personal communicators.

When it comes to imagining the future I often think of the Putney Debates at the end of the English Civil War round about 1650 - when a number of Parliamentarian soldiers were imagining the future and included such things as healthcare for all - took the UK 300 years to get to that one.

I dislike books which outline and detail the problems, without a thought of a solution - as in we are all ground down and that is your lot kind of books. Maybe they are trying to inspire other people to act, without suggesting a course of action, but that doesn't work for me.