Mick Hartley

Politics and Culture

recent posts

email me

The Other Whale

Last night's Arena on BBC2 was all about whales, Moby Dick, and Herman Melville. I like whales, me, so this was a treat. Looking out at the Atlantic from the shores of Nantucket; old clips of Gregory Peck gurning away as Ahab; visiting Melville's old home in Western Massachusetts, and his grave in the Bronx, plus all that whale action – what's not to like? Well, this being a portentous BBC Arts programme, quite a lot.

One of the reasons Moby Dick is so popular in literary circles is that it's one of those texts – indeed, one of the seminal texts – where you can introduce that concept so beloved of literary critics, the Other. With a capital O. Moby Dick is a symbol of the Other. He's different, being white, very big, and, well, a whale. So naturally Captain Ahab hates him with a passion. He's Other. The Other.

It explains a lot, this idea of the Other. It may well be the only thing that people who emerge after three years of an English degree will have retained from all those lectures. They can go out into the world – well, the BBC – armed with that one great all-purpose explanatory device. If something's different, it could well qualify as being the Other, and therefore become the object of our irrational hatred.

So, inevitably, a BBC programme with a whole hour to devote to the subject of whales will end up discussing Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. You see the connection? The Other. Why do we hate (or rather, why are we encouraged to hate) Osama bin Laden? Because he represents the Other. It also means that the BBC can show lots of pictures of the collapsing twin towers, or explosions in Baghdad. It adds a dramatic contemporary touch to a programme which was, with its emphasis on 19th Century Nantucket, in danger of losing its relevance. We attacked Iraq because Saddam was, for us, the Other. Not because he was in breach of UN resolutions, had invaded two neighbouring countries, had conducted a genocidal campaign against some of his own people, was in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, and was setting up a dynasty of psychopaths in the heart of the Middle East. No, it was because he was the Other.

This is why I don't often watch BBC Arts programmes.

Posted in

18 responses to “The Other Whale”

  1. Bob-B Avatar
    Bob-B

    It’s funny that no one seems to suggest that the chattering classes hate George Bush because he is the Other.

    Like

    Reply
  2. Seb Avatar
    Seb

    I hereby classify BBC Arts Programmers as Other. They don’t need to be for me to hate them; I’m quite capable of hating people who are similar to myself, but I will use their construction and hate them for their Otherness since they’ve taken so much trouble to set it up. It seems like an extraneous step, but I’ve always been an obliging individual, willing to go the extra mile to hate someone.
    Have you considered watching Schwarzenegger movies as an antidote? Otherness abounds, although Mr. Schwarzenegger rarely seems to have much in the way of hatred for the Other before he shoots it.

    Like

    Reply
  3. SnoopyTheGoon Avatar
    SnoopyTheGoon

    Sometimes I wonder: while we grant some people that poetic license, shouldn’t we have a consumer committee with a license to kill? Or, at least, to maim. It could encourage a new outlook on life, the universe and everything.
    Nah… just thinking aloud.

    Like

    Reply
  4. Ophelia Benson Avatar
    Ophelia Benson

    Osama is Moby Dick! Jeez, why didn’t I think of that.

    Like

    Reply
  5. Eric Berman Avatar
    Eric Berman

    Call me a shlemiel!

    Like

    Reply
  6. Andy Avatar
    Andy

    Er, we invaded Iraq because he “had” weapons of mass destruction. All those other reasons you list are retrospective justifcations. They are “other” to the case for war that was articulated time and again by both the American President and the British Prime Minister (dodgy dossier and all). So this thread proves your point in a way: the idea of the “other” will always be a recurrent resource for the weak-minded and the politically unscrupulous.

    Like

    Reply
  7. Mick H Avatar
    Mick H

    After all this time I really don’t want to get into another argument about Iraq, but no, these weren’t just retrospective justifications.
    Your point about the “other” is singularly contrived, I have to say.

    Like

    Reply
  8. Lee Avatar
    Lee

    It’s not contrived; it’s spot-on (or not as contrived as your remarks about what goes on in English Departments, for example). I’m very sure you don’t want to get involved in another discussion about Iraq (although you did bring it up in the post above), but it is a matter of simple honesty to acknowledge that the idea that the British people thought they were sending troops into combat because Hussein was “setting up a dynasty of psychopaths in the heart of the Middle East” bore no part in substantive political or public debate and is a mere Hitchens talking point. No more, no less.

    Like

    Reply
  9. JohnSF Avatar
    JohnSF

    “…one of the seminal texts…”
    Oh dear.

    Like

    Reply
  10. mark g Avatar
    mark g

    “We attacked Iraq because Saddam was, for us, the Other. Not because he was in breach of UN resolutions, had invaded two neighbouring countries, had conducted a genocidal campaign against some of his own people, was in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, and was setting up a dynasty of psychopaths in the heart of the Middle East. No, it was because he was the Other.”
    Which attack are you referring to, the (reasonably defensible) first one or the (much less defensible) Shock & Awe outing? If it is the latter, I would say that “we” (or you) did not attack Iraq merely because Saddam was The Other, though the fact that he was some kind of Other clearly made the bloody mess more palatable. We/You attacked Iraq because (1) GW & Co decided we/you needed somebody to attack and a war would play well post 9/11 (if we/you played the Patriotism card, which of course he did, in spades) (2) not because Saddam actually possessed WMDs but, partly, because he clearly did not (as various people later admitted), and so was presumed an easy target (a quick in and out exercise like the last time and America could sail home triumphant, having deposed a verifiably nasty dictator (whom America initially supported but let that pass) (3) Oil is in there somewhere, obviously, or none of it would count for anything, just a bunch of towel-head losers in the desert so who cares? (4) it could play (through a torturous logic involving Saddam in cohorts with Al Q) as part of the sacred War on Terror (5) pure, unbridled arrogance. As that “advisor to the president” put it so well: “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
    You see, I am part of that Other, being a pesky European Irish person. I’m not in the Empire, or not quite.

    Like

    Reply
  11. Mick H Avatar
    Mick H

    Lee – you’ve shifted the goalposts there, but I really can’t be bothered to argue with you.
    Mark G – the point of the post seems to have passed you by.

    Like

    Reply
  12. JR Hartley Avatar
    JR Hartley

    You warmongering murdering bastard. Lick the blood off your hands you warmongering racist bastard.

    Like

    Reply
  13. Dave Avatar
    Dave

    If you don’t like people calling you out on tangible falsehoods asserted as fact, such as those you cite above concerning the reasons for Gulf War II, you shouldn’t assert tangible falsehoods as fact. We were all there, it was all WMD and Al Qaeda, smoking mushroom clouds and 45-minute claims, all the time. And it was all untrue.

    Like

    Reply
  14. toby Avatar
    toby

    Can anyone else remember when “looking for a bit of the other” meant looking for a good shag?

    Like

    Reply
  15. mark g Avatar
    mark g

    “Mark G – the point of the post seems to have passed you by.”
    With respect Mick, there was more than one point to your post, so it seems to me. What I responded to (albeit rather heavy-handedly I admit) was what I take to be your misplaced irony. The ongoing second Gulf War is a well-documented disgrace, predicated on cynical lies. From what you wrote, one could be forgiven for thinking that it was/is actually an honorable cause. But if I’m reading you wrong, or understanding you too quickly, my apologies.

    Like

    Reply
  16. Eric Berman Avatar
    Eric Berman

    In this comparison of the war against Al Qaida and Moby Dick, the hardest thing to imagine is that George Bush could sustain a coherent thought long enough to pursue his whale. Bush is an imbecile puppet and Ahab is a monomaniac, two very different creatures–now, if you want to make Cheney Ahab . . . .

    Like

    Reply
  17. Andy Avatar
    Andy

    Mick,
    “You’ve shifted the goalposts there, I can’t be bothered to argue with you”?
    How has he done so (since you specify nothing)?
    And what sort of a response is that to a blog respondent?
    This thread is a bit of a Sarah Palin moment. You’ve made a series of assertions based on nothing, you’ve been made to ridiculous, and you have, er, collapsed.
    Here’s an idea. Cycle around London and take your polaroids. But, Please God, stop Norm linking to you. When the pressure comes on, we all end up feeling sorry for you. And we all have old mums at home.

    Like

    Reply
  18. Mick H Avatar
    Mick H

    “I’ve been made to ridiculous”. Well I guess I’ll just have to live with it, eh?

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Dave Cancel reply