Log in
George Carlin and Critical Literacy
Monday (June 23) morning, I learned that the Universe lost George Carlin, I believe Sunday or Sunday evening. Carlin's heart finally lost the battle. On my drive to teach my summer courses, a 30-45 minute adventure on the highways each morning, I listened to local talk radio trash and demonize Carlin. The talk-show host and callers reveled in noting that Carlin was in hell—that his life-long pursuit of satire wasn't so funny for him now, they claimed.
I cried when I heard of the passing of Carlin; a little over a year ago, I had the same bouts of crying when Kurt Vonnegut died in April 2007. Vonnegut received similar demonizing from the Right, a notable hate-fest from Fox news that treated Vonnegut in ways most of us wouldn't imagine.
In my adolescence, George Carlin's albums were the genesis of my life in critical literacy. He was empowered and he created a world for others to be empowered by his WORDS. The seven words you couldn't say on television became my poetic mantra as a self-deprecating comedian among my peers, a defense mechanism for me to hide my insecurities and for me to closet myself. My sexuality was not my problem; my rampant heterosexuality was frustrating for me, but it was widely embraced by my culture. My closet was one of non-belief, living my life in the fundamentalist South and having no sense of believing in god.
Carlin's profane and confrontational view of LIFE and of RELIGION gave me a window into a world I thought was a delusion only of my mind. . .
It is easy to find on YouTube Carlin's rant on religion as bullshit. It is brilliant and nuanced. Carlin asked us to step back from our own trivializations of god and belief. But fundamentalists want to portray Carlin as a hater of god. . .although for me, Carlin's WORDS and USE of words were one of the many saviors in my life. A lineage that includes Vonnegut and later Joe Kincheloe.
My critical literacy includes the profane as liberation, the peace that surpasses dogma and fear and taboo. In J. D. Salinger's fiction "goddamn" is not blasphemous, but a series of little prayers. Somehow, with Carlin in my back pocket, I recognized that when I found literature in high school and college.
If you could all be so kind to allow me this space, for George: To all that want to trash a human who has passed from this life after giving all that he could while here, well, fuck 'em.
God Bless You, Mr. Carlin.
Paul Thomas, 6/24/08
P.S. See June 23 and June 24 posts on my personal blog for some great Carlin links and articles after his passing: http://plthom3.blogspot.com/
- Nita Schmidt and P.L. Thomas's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version
tags for George Carlin and Critical Literacy
Navigation
JOIN US ON:
Comments
Paul,
I forget sometimes how similar our backgrounds are. As you would guess, I'm sure, I too was terrifically saddened by George's passing and have always felt that he was such an important critical presence in my life. If 71 is the new 61, then he died much too young. As you so eloquently say he passed along his love of words, their ambiguity, their multiple meanings and, of course, their use in literature, writing, and humor. He was a deconstructionist before Derrida. I can remember struggling to understand Derrida as a young scholar, thinking the whole time that in many ways this work was a scholarly extension of what Carlin had been doing for years. I am very glad now he is gone that I listed him as a major influence on me in published work.
Shirley and I were lucky enough to see him "in concert" in Pittsburgh. Without qualification, I never laughed so hard in my life. At several points in the monologue I literally had to cover my ears so I would not laugh any harder--I almost passed out from laughing too hard. I don't know what that says about me, but it says that Carlin was pretty damned funny.
As I have written far too often, it is viewed as so crass to laugh too loudly in academia. Carlin and his comic/ideological genius always helped assure me that laughter in pedagogy is a great virtue and not a vice. I will continue to laugh at the absurdity of educational and political affairs at the same time I continue to change them. The two activities are synergistic not contradictory. The new Puritans of both the left and the right undermine their causes when they eschew laughter at themselves, their concerns, and their lives in general. In Carlin's adept hands laughter was a subversive activity. He truly understood the "blues aesthetic" that assures us in the midst of our pain, we can laugh and celebrate the libidinal energy of creation. Jerry Seinfeld said that in a conversation with George a few days ago, they were making jokes about death. What a great way to go.
When Carlin's genius is confused with smut and he is condemned to hell by the prevailing politics of knowledge, we begin to understand just how much we'll miss him.
As always, thanks so much Paul,
Joe
Joe L. Kincheloe Canada Research Chair in Critical Pedagogy Faculty of Education McGill University
How can they demonize people the way they do, all in the name of Christianity or some "higher" moral standard? It's sad the way they have spoken of Carlin and devalued his work and his life. I am too often totally shocked at some of the things I hear in my real life settings that provide examples of this same mindset; some that are so bad they do not even warrant posting on this site (or should I expose the irrationality and insanity?) The truth is, I cannot bear to repeat some of the things I have heard, they are so out of touch with reality. And it scares me, the way some people do not think.
My teen son was upset just the other day, because an adult told him that Obama should not be president because we should have a Christian president since the U.S. was "founded on Christianity." Talk about a teachable moment.
At any rate, I like the following quote on your blogsite:
"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.
-- George Carlin"
I think this says it all.
Thank you for your blog!
Peace and Love,
Vanessa
My first experience with George Carlin was raiding my parent’s record collection and finding the LP "occupation foole". It may of been one of the first experiences of critical pedagogy through my engagement with his humour, learning that funny can also be pointing out hypocrisy or alternate perspectives and subsequently gaining the tools to question conventional wisdom.
Stemming from that experience, fast-forwarding about 10 years, I came across the seminal hip-hop group "public enemy". 2 days ago I had the opportunity to see the group at the Montreal Jazz Festival and the experience taps into my thoughts on critical pedagogy and issues of race, gender, power etc. I want to briefly share my experience in pseudo "concert review" form and hopefully get across my thoughts on how this group represents the potential for challenging oppression through its words and call to action.
Firstly, I need to acknowledge that the Public Enemy show that appeared at Montreal Jazz fest consisted mostly of men. The whole experience started with raised fists in the air, a nod to Black power, strength and solidarity with the eminent group of powerful political rap. Chuck D, Flavour Flav, DJ Lord and the S1Ws hit the stage with a mighty rendition of 'bring the noise', filled with provocation to the mainstream. The crowd was ecstatic that the legends had found their way toMontreal
Chuck D explained that in commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the release of "it takes a nation of millions to hold us back" they would be playing the whole album cover to cover. With that, the air raid sirens erupted leading into "don't believe the hype".
In other news, Professor Griff was denied access toCanada Canada
I could go on...the experience was so rich. In two hours, the group pointed at so many examples of resistance, radical history and knowledge. The crowd was screaming for more.
But in conclusion, what I want to get across is the gift this group has given by providing the tools to resist, to question what "freedom" actually means and the promotion that being articulate and critical about politics, history and contemporary life is valuable. Like Carlin, pushing boundaries and rejecting the main stream is a viable path and pedagogy.
Peace!
Benji
Two and a Half Men
R.Sweeney
July 24/08
I was watching the television program, Two and a Half Men, yesterday and was laughing as usual as I tend to watch this program more than others. They have the typical stereotypes, woman housekeeper, big house on the beach, rich womanizing white man owner, less successful brother, divorced with overweight not so bright son. The ex wife is made out to be the bitch and the mother of the two men is made out to be the same. After I started to take notes on this program I started to wonder why I liked it so much. All the women characters are made out to be either, crazy stalkers, bitches, or naive stupid sluts. On the brighter side it has a good underlying concept, rich brother taking care of less fortunate brother and allowing him and his son to live with him, but which message are people getting when they watch this program? The innuendos made about women or the nice caring brother helping out family members? The gender issues are one thing, but some of the content is not kid friendly. Last nights episode was about the two boys not wanting to let the grandma see the son any longer as in their opinion she put them through hell growing up and they didn’t want that for Jake (the son). They wouldn’t take her phone calls, or listen to visits from friends talking on her behalf. It ended up that the grandma finally got them to give her some attention by faking a heart attack and ending up in the hospital. What kind of message is that sending people? If you feel you are not getting the attention you deserve fake an injury and admit yourself to the hospital? Are there any shows out there that are entertaining but don’t send such ridiculous messages to viewers?
Lies and Betrayal (blog5)
R.Sweeney
July 25/08
Lies and betrayal was the name of the Dr. Phil episode I watched. Dr. Phil came out in a very nice suit and tie, looking very professional. His guests were actually white, and the woman was overweight with a pretty face. There wasn’t that much to the show. The man claimed his wife was a molester of children and the wife claimed the husband was a pathological liar. They did have two children together and that was the side Dr. Phil claimed to be on, the whole show. “It is all about the children and getting to the truth”, was his repeated statement. I found it really interesting that if he was on the side of the children why did he focus his attention on the husband the whole show and catching him in his lies? All the wife did the whole show was sit and cry the whole time looking very vulnerable and useless. Of course they both did a polygraph test to find out who was lying, and low and behold the husband was the liar! Of course the husband was the liar, the show was about him, the woman didn’t talk at all! By the end of the show Dr. Phil offers the husband professional help which he denies, and then tends his attention to the audience and says life is all about common sense, and if you want to talk about a time when you ignored your common sense, like the wife did on this show, go to my web site at.....and discuss it. Promoting oneself, how typical!
Garbage (blog 6)
R.Sweeney
July 26th/08
After watching Dr. Phil, Maury was a complete headache! I couldn’t even watch the whole thing. Most of the guests were black, overweight, trailer trash. The guests were swearing, calling each other slut, and ho. Arms were waving around and pointing at each other, and they wouldn’t stay seated. Everyone was in everyone’s face. All Maury did was just sit there and let the guests have it out with each other. There was no talking going on, only constant yelling and peeping out of language because of swearing. The audience was right in the action, booing, yelling, and pointing at the guests. Of course the show was about paternity tests. The name of the show was, “Don’t have long to live! Am I our babies father”? With that being the name, I didn’t hear anyone mention anything about anyone dying. They all looked perfectly healthy and ready to give shit to anyone who stood in their way. The show totally reminded me of the Jerry Springer Show. I had thought when I taped the Maury show that it was more civilized and an actual talk show. I was really disappointed when the show started and it was a complete mess, and almost instantly gave me a headache. I don’t understand how a show like this is still on the air. What kind of people watch this show? It portrayed black people as fat, uneducated, garbage, so I wouldn’t imagine they would be watching this show, and it gave me a headache. Who finds this type of show worth watching? I don’t even understand why people would go on this show? They were made to look completely ridiculous.
Money Bags (blog7)
R.Sweeney
July 27/08
By the time I got around to watching Oprah, I was pretty much talk showed out. Oprah was very tame compared to Maury. The audience was very respectful, and was a very inactive audience except for the occasional cheering. I found that Oprah threw her money around quite a bit. Changing her stage set up with each guest, changing her clothing and hair half way through the show. Promoting people and items was what the show was all about. With each guest the audience was given the guests book, cd, or dvd. The guests would promote themselves, and Oprah, by mentioning that their daughter loved Oprah and watched her show all the time. My wife loves your magazine and we keep it in all our bathrooms, was getting a bit annoying. I understand that the show was about interviewing people but the information that was shared was all about their professional lives, what shows they are in, what books they have written, what new tv series they are on.... The odd guest mentioned their wife or family, but the focus was definitely on their successes and Oprah’s fame. I found that the guests tried to promote their humanness by admitting they had terrible grades in school, or that fame wasn’t all it was cracked up to be. I was beaten up in school because I moved around a lot and up until a few years ago I as miserable. I found it really condescending toward the everyday person. I am sorry but trying to relate to someone saying they were lying by their pool in their huge castle of a home thinking, I am so unhappy being famous, is totally insulting.