More Than Zero

Charles Oliver from the July 2000 issue

(Page 2 of 2)

Hibbs is silent on the question of why artists have such a hard time presenting attractive portraits of virtue. The problem may be what we consider to be virtuous behavior. Too often, we are told that virtue lies in sacrifice, meekness, service to some good or authority higher than ourselves. When writers and directors try to create a character who embodies such virtues, they almost inevitably come up with a simpleton like Forrest Gump.

By contrast, consider the Iliad and the Odyssey. Those works present many characters who meet Hibbs' call for complex, realistic, and attractive portraits of virtuous men (and, on occasion, women). But those works upheld an ethical framework that valued cunning, pride, and self-interest as well as honor and bravery. When greed, sensuality, and self-interest are considered vices, it stands to reason that only the villains will display those traits. And maybe that attitude, not a fascination with evil per se, is one reason the bad guys in film and TV are often much more interesting than the good guys.

Contemporary nihilism may be even more deeply rooted than Hibbs believes. Nietzsche held that nihilism grows out of a religious tradition that opposes this world to the next and denigrates the former in favor of the latter. By doing so, it robs our lives in this world of all meaning. A popular culture that portrays this world as having meaning, a culture that applauds success, pride, and the right of each person to live for himself, would help battle the nihilism we see around us. It could also help counter the passion for equality that Tocqueville warned against. But this almost certainly isn't the sort of art that Hibbs has in mind. It would reinforce the individualism and egoism he thinks so destructive.

In any case, must all art be morally uplifting? Perhaps nihilistic art performs a useful function. Take Seinfeld. We can agree with Hibbs' reading of that show and still ask, so what? Yes, the characters in the series seem to live in a world governed by chance. Yes, they are driven by irrational passions, and the rules they seek to conform to are baffling and contradictory. But does the series teach us that our lives are that way, or does it show us how life is for the shallow and immature? Does Seinfeld mock the meaninglessness of life, or does it mock those who lead meaningless lives?

Hibbs and other critics of popular culture assume that a person's taste in art reflects his deeply held values, and that this is true for a society as well. If many Americans devour nihilistic entertainment, then, it is because they are seeking a reflection of the views they already hold.

There may be some truth to that assumption. If someone listens only to harsh, misogynistic music, watches only dark, nihilistic films, and plays only violent video games, it could be (though not necessarily) cause for alarm. And if a culture is dominated by decadent, nihilistic popular culture, that too may be reason to worry. But what are we to make of a person who was moved by Schindler's List and who also enjoyed The Silence of the Lambs? Or of someone who laughs at The Simpsons or Seinfeld and cries during Touched by an Angel?

More important, what are we to make of a culture that allows all of these shows and movies to be hits? Maybe such persons, and cultures, suffer from basic spiritual conflicts and have a mixed view of how life is or should be. Or perhaps the occasional nihilistic film helps a spiritually healthy person, or society, confront the occasional fear that life is meaningless and, by facing that fear, overcome it.