Against ego-intrusion

Last night, I saw Roberto Aussel at the Wigmore Hall. One feature of his performance was an apparent embarrassment at the applause of the audience. It was as if he was uncomfortable to be in front of it.

I found this charming and admirable. He was performing not for acclaim, but for the sake of the music. What mattered to him was not gratification of his ego, but the pursuit of excellence and the extension of musical traditions (baroque in the first half, contemporary south American in the second.)

This distinction – which echoes MacIntyre’s distinction between the goods of excellence and effectiveness - is important and ubiquitous. Josh Ritter, a very different great contemporary musician was aware of it when he sang:

I’m singing for the love of it—have mercy on the man who sings to be adored

It’s in this context that Elvis has had a terrible influence upon popular music. Before him, musicians generally thought themselves less important than the song. After him, popular music became a vehicle for the promotion of ego.

But it’s not just music where there’s a distinction between ego-intrusion and the pursuit of excellence. It happens in financial markets too. There are those who ask: what is the market saying here? What imperfections are there, and why do they arise? They are pursuing excellence. And then there are those – who get the publicity – who just impose their egos, and tell us where prices are going in their “judgment.”

But it’s in politics, even more than in popular music, that ego-intrusion swamped the pursuit of established traditions and practices.

I’m thinking of two opposed traditions here.

The conservative one, expressed by Michael Oakeshott, sees government as a limited activity, intended to allow free individuals to live in peace:

The image of the ruler is the umpire whose business is to administer the rules of the game, or the chairman who governs the debate according to known rules but does not himself participate in it…The office [the Conservative] attributes to government is to resolve some of the collisions which this variety of beliefs and activities generates; to preserve peace, not by placing an interdict upon choice and upon the diversity that springs from the exercise of preference, not by imposing substantive uniformity, but by enforcing general rules of procedure upon all subjects alike.

The radical tradition asks: what ideals should we aim for, and what institutions can best pursue them?

But contemporary politics erases both traditions, in favour of ego-intrusion – the belief that, if only the right ego were in charge (Cameron’s, Brown’s, whatever), all would be well.

The tragedy is – no-one seems to realize things could be different.

Comments

[Sam]

If we used to have umpires,
does that make Tony Blair a streaker?

[dave heasman]

Before him [Elvis], musicians generally thought themselves less important than the song..

Some did, some didn't. Sinatra pretended he did, but his life suggests differently. Likewise Crosby, Tommy Dorsey, Artie Shaw, for certain Benny Goodman, and hows about Vladimir Horowitz? And Al bloody Jolson?