Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: We can fight anti-choicers and fight scientific misinformation….together Previous entry: Occupy Wall St. and why Millenials have reacted with anger

Why the Sonic Youth news isn’t as bad as we fear

So, combining some of the ideas from my past two posts, I want to write a little about the news that Thurston Moore and Kim Gordon of Sonic Youth---who have been married for 27 years---are throwing in the towel. Well, not the news itself, because even though they're public figures, this is obviously a private matter and none of us are privy to the particulars of their situation. In fact, I'm a little uneasy discussing it at all, because I worry there's no way to comment on the public reaction to the news without somehow commenting on the event of the separation itself, which again, is a private matter between two people and doesn't involve any of the rest of us. But I'm going to try, because I think the public reaction is fascinating, including my reaction.

A lot of writers have commented in recent years, to varying degress of success, on the seeming paradox of Generation X. We're a generation known predominantly for our sense of humor and our cynicism, but it's also becoming increasingly clear that X-ers, as a group, are tremendously devoted to an idealized view of family life. The tension is relieved in a couple of ways. One major way is by having a rowdy sense of humor about it, which is on full display in the explosion of blogs and memoirs of Gen X parenting, and in the trend for "hipster baby" stuff like baby clothes referencing popular musicians. The ugly side of it is the trend towards acting like it's you and your family versus the world, which is why the anti-vaccination movement built around inability to believe that something good for the world could be good for your kids is a Gen X phenomenon. But that we're family-oriented as a group is hard to deny. Boomers basically went through the legalization of abortion, the liberalization of divorce laws, and the divorce boom, but my generation's signature civil rights movement was expanding marriage rights to same sex couples. That is pretty symbolic, I think, of the general hope that we can preserve traditional institutions but remake them with progressive values. Personally speaking, I've long thought of myself as a dissenter from this emphasis on home and hearth that's developed in my generation; I'm glad that a lot of the family-oriented X-ers out there are trying really hard to create a sustainable, egalitarian view of devoted family life, but I'm suspicious of how possible it is. I think it's true that a lot of X-ers grew up in a divorce-heavy society and we've made it a priority not to repeat that pattern of marrying young, divorcing, and remarrying. My approach has been to avoid marriage at all, but for a lot of X-ers, the approach has been to marry later and convince themselves they can avoid divorce. To a large extent, that strategy has been successful; the divorce rate has declined. Still, I remain skeptical of this utopian vision. 

Which is all prelude to explain why, for the subsection of X-ers who are devoted fans of indie and punk rock, Kim Gordon and Thurston Moore breaking up was really sad news. Like I noted in my post last night, Sonic Youth was more than just great music for the rock fans of my generation; they were role models. They were people who had strong progressive values, and they seem to live up to them. I look up to them. Pretty much all of my friends do. Looking up to them is a given; they really do seem like great people.  So it's really not surprising that people were genuinely unsettled by the news. 

Nitsuh Abebe summed up how much we Sonic Youth fans had, perhaps unwittingly, invested in the Gordon/Moore marriage:

In Gordon and Moore, you could imagine empirical proof that a lot of things you feared were true about life—things your parents always warned you about—did not necessarily have to be that way. For instance: that a career in an avant-garde rock band might lead not into penury, instability, and isolation but instead to a place in a perma-cool family living in a nice house in the Berkshires. That committing to being a feminist, punk, or artist would not cut you off from normal people and force you into huge compromises in your domestic affairs but might actually lead you to someone who’d share all of those commitments. That a heterosexual married couple could not only work together but collaborate as equals and throw equally large shadows. What better fairy tale to reassure young people that they don’t ever have to settle? It’s like getting a notarized letter containing three important promises: that your bohemian dreams won’t conflict with middle-class contentment; that maybe the reason your parents’ generation all divorced was that they never found partners cool enough to be in a band with; and that you, as an adult, could do better.

We're of course being big babies about this. Three decades of marriage, a healthy child, and a great working relationship that resulted in a paradigm-shifting rock band that did things like help rescue West Texas teenagers from a fate of conservative housewifery: it's sick the way our culture characterizes this as a "failure" if the entire enterprise ends because you choose to end it and not because someoone dies first. Abebe agrees with this assessment, figuring that on the whole, they were a wild success at what they set out to do. But then he ends with a statement I have to take issue with, "But if you were counting on them, or anyone else, as proof that interesting tastes and shared passions could create some version of adulthood and marriage any easier than the one you grew up looking at, then sorry: Your parents were probably right about that part." Okay, well he's not wrong. It's not easier. But I think it's more fulfilling, and I think maybe we can still take comfort in couples like Moore and Gordon, even as they split up. Just because you break up doesn't mean that it wasn't good on the whole. 

I think the reason that fans are so sad even in the face of these facts goes back to our optimism about family life, even as we're generally cynical about everything else. We bought the fantasy of "forever", and even though we grew up as the children of divorce, we didn't really question very deeply why we value "forever" so much, instead of asking hard questions about why a relationship's success is measured by longeivity instead of what the individuals get out of it while in it. I know I was mildly shocked by how unsettled I was and how much I had invested in this idea of "forever", and I'm not the marrying kind! But stepping back from that and looking at the bigger picture, I think that my reaction of being sad was misplaced. I mean, I'm sad for them that they have to go through this and it's probably hard, but beyond that, there's no reason to be sad. They're still the awesome role models of how to do it right that they always were, even if they aren't perfect people. They did make it work for 27 years, and showed that it's totally doable. They remain a good example of why you don't have to settle

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 04:56 PM • (25) Comments

I really hate this view among some liberals that divorce, abortion, and premarital sex are inherently bad, or at least less desirable than their alternatives.  They still believe in the conservative premises, and argue from a position of allowing necessary evil.

In my view, divorce is no more or less valid than staying married until someone dies.  In some cases, divorce is even the better option.  I can’t really think of any other relationship that is supposed to last as strongly until the death of one of the people involved.  I drift away from friends all the time and find new ones.  I make an effort to stay in touch with my best friend from college and I like to hope that we’ll be friends forever.  But I’m only 26 and if we drift apart when we’re both 60, nobody will consider it a failure of a relationship.  Divorce doesn’t make relationships end.  Sometimes relationships end on their own, without much control from the people involved, and divorce is just a way to get out of a relationship that has already ended so you don’t end up living a facade or trying to make something work that just doesn’t.  And it really bothers me that progressives frequently don’t understand this.

Comment #1: bananacat  on  10/26  at  06:15 PM

I, too, am annoyed by liberals who idealize the “American Dream” of an isolated nuclear family, suburban bliss, and middle class prosperity. They want to shoehorn progressive values into existing social structures because they don’t want to question those social structures, or it hasn’t occurred to them to envision different social structures. They think we could have some version of the 50s but with gender, racial, and sexual equality, and worse, they think that that would be ideal. (Granted, it would be better than the 50s we actually had.)

Comment #2: Triplanetary  on  10/26  at  06:57 PM

I’m not a big fan of isolated nuclear families, but I do like it when people can take care of one another.

27 years is a long time.  People used to die a lot more, back in the day.

Comment #3: Punditus Maximus  on  10/26  at  07:51 PM

I agree with bananacat. All relationships end, even if you die hand in hand in bed. That they were committed to each other for 27 years is a huge thing and a successful marriage. We idealize marriage to death, and no one can live up to the ideal.

Comment #4: JulesAboutTown  on  10/26  at  07:53 PM

London Calling
But don’t look to us
Phony Beatlemania
Has bitten the dust

Don’t idolize people, it’s that simple.

Comment #5: Henry Holland  on  10/26  at  08:02 PM

I remember feeling the same sort of disappointment that Amanda mentioned when Al and Tipper Gore divorced, but then when I took a step back I realized it was incredibly naive of me to think that the pressures of public and political life wouldn’t take their toll on a relationship.

But I also think my disappointment played a lot on of the “us vs. them” that we can all get caught up in when being involved with partisan issues.  I wanted “my side” to be progressive and have values that I cherish while at the same time winning on the supposed home turf of conservatives, namely that of marriage and family.  But you know what, people are people.  Conservatives and liberals get divorced all the time.  It just happens. Doesn’t mean its bad or good; it is what it is.

Comment #6: Damemusic  on  10/26  at  08:05 PM

Word up to this not being a “failed” relationship.  As Dan Savage says (not that he knows everything), if there were good years, it was a successful marriage.  And these two had some damn good years.

Comment #7: dopus dei  on  10/26  at  08:24 PM

Wevs, Henry. I didn’t say I “idolized” them, but it’s bullshit to say that we can’t look up to people and learn from people we admire. In fact, psychological research suggests even trying is impossible. Posing like you’re some unique snowflake who is so superior they can’t look up to anyone is just that: a pose. And a transparent one, at that.

Comment #8: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/26  at  08:29 PM

I’m fine with looking up to people. And I"m fine with being looked up to, but I try very hard not to put people on or let myself be put on a pedestal. Too easy to fall off from (or be pulled from).  Admiring someone’s skills helps us learn. I think the place where I get annoyed is when people have mistakes or failures, it’s so common for others to be harsh about it. Not referring to this article and its subjects, mind you, but another situation in the life of one of my friends.

We are all human and we all seem to long for something higher than ourselves. Or it seems common. We love our gods, we love to tear them apart when they fall. It’s odd. 

I’d rather look up to humans dealing well within systems that should themselves be humanized (forever marriage for instance.).

Comment #9: JulesAboutTown  on  10/26  at  08:53 PM

27 years is, of course, way longer than the median marriage through most of recorded history. But I think perhaps that part of the problem is that we still privilege “marriage” as a particular kind of relationship that by its legal/contractual nature has a much more necessary beginning and end. But all of us may have relationships of other kinds that last longer, or are more intense or formative. And the period called “marriage” is only part of total relationship of any two people who get married.

As sort of an example of this, the earlier-generations pattern of early marriage followed by divorce and remarriage (and sometimes more divorce and remarriage) is in most ways but nomenclature comparable to the modern likelihood that someone will have one or more “serious” relationships before getting married.

Comment #10: paul  on  10/26  at  08:56 PM

HH, Bertolt Brecht nailed it as well:

Andrea: Unhappy is the land that breeds no hero.

Galileo: No, Andrea: Unhappy is the land that needs a hero.

  Scene 12, p. 115   Life of Galileo

Comment #11: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  10/26  at  09:10 PM

Oh god, the end of that article sure is some crazy-making self-loathing liberal bait. These are wealthy, independent minded people. They want to spend some f’ing time on their own after a partnership that brought more people more joy than the other 99.9999% of couplings. How can anyone stomach to read anything more into it than “ha, my 14 y.o. self is bummed out right now”?

Comment #12: Alex  on  10/26  at  09:53 PM

Relationships have lifetimes and sometimes, often even, that lifetime is shorter than your own. That can be a very uncomfortable proposition.

Comment #13: Linnaeus  on  10/26  at  10:04 PM

On the list of things that are none of my fucking business, other peoples’ relationships is pretty high up there.

Comment #14: hells littlest angel  on  10/26  at  10:13 PM

Other peoples’ health is none of my fuckin’ business, but that shouldn’t necessarily stop me from feeling sad if someone I care about, professionally or personally, has a heart attack. Obviously, it’s not my place to judge them or tell them what they should have done differently, but that doesn’t preclude me from feeling some compassion for them.

I have no idea whether Moore and Gordon are sad about how their relationship ended. Maybe they’re happy about it, and if so, I’m happy for them. But, if they’re like most people who get divorced, the end was probably bittersweet at best.

Comment #15: Lindsay Beyerstein  on  10/26  at  10:54 PM

Relationships are complicated things, married or no. It would be nice if we spent less time worrying about the “right” way to do them (aside from things like abuse and respect) and just let people muddle through as best they could.

Of course, I’ve often thought the rich couples that get separate houses when they marry so they have somewhere to retreat to now and then had the right idea. Solitude is something everyone should be able to access when they need it.

Comment #16: emjaybee  on  10/26  at  10:56 PM

It seems like a lot of my friends that got married right after college are now at that point where they are “going through a rough patch” and I get the feeling that they would be better off apart rather than going through endless counseling sessions and fighting over trivial crap.  At least from my perspective, Maybe once again, thurston Moore and Kim Gordon are role models for how to end a relationship that isn’t working

Comment #17: Benny  on  10/27  at  10:04 AM

Beatlemania is coming back.  I think its important to have heros, you should only question why a particular person is one, my heros kept changing.

Comment #18: ewellone  on  10/27  at  10:44 AM

I agree with almost everything in this post, particularly about the rejection of the “failed marriage” labe. However,

for a lot of X-ers, the approach has been to marry later and convince themselves they can avoid divorce. To a large extent, that strategy has been successful; the divorce rate has declined. Still, I remain skeptical of this utopian vision.

“utopian?” Really? Something that describes more than half of all marriages is hardly utopian. Hopeful, perhaps, but not utopian.

Comment #19: mightywombat  on  10/27  at  11:24 AM

I read your article on Sonic Youth, went to wikipedia, read about Sonic Youth, clicked for the soundtrack to the second album “Bad Moon Rising”, listened to the tracks in order on youtube and wondered how I didn’t know where Jane’s Addiction and Nirvana got their sound from. 

Also, Amanda, that scene in Juno where she yells at Jason Bateman “I listened to that Sonic Youth Album you gave me…. it’s just noise!!!”  really resonated with me, especially after your article on GenX versus millenials: they are waiting for their Cobain.  Which is why Juno was so hostile to liking the early 90’s bands and referring to a “golden age” of punk.

Comment #20: kma815  on  10/27  at  01:01 PM

Interesting… this made me think a lot about how these attitudes apply to me, although I am post-Gen-X (born ‘86). My wife and I have a pretty damn unconventional relationship. We’re gay, we’re both fairly masculine, we don’t ever want kids (seriously, we thrive just fine in the “cool aunt” role), we have always had an open relationship and are very open about the fact that we have an open relationship, and we don’t believe in this “isolated nuclear family,” of going off and living alone and having your own house/car/everything. We’ve been married 3 years now, have 2 roommates (well, housemates), and have no intention of ever going off and living alone again if we can help it. Our long-term goals include investing in a property together with some of our family/friends where we can all have our privacy but share many things. We joke to people that we got married because we heard that was the best way to destroy the traditional family, and I suppose in a way that’s true.

But despite all of this, we both believe strongly in “forever.” We’re not naive enough to think that that’s not hard or that it might not happen, but it’s what we both really want. I find myself wondering why (aside from the fact that I love her of course), and I know that stability is part of it, but I think that how things are seen might be an even bigger part of it. I don’t ever want the embarrassment of a divorce. It’s really easy to sit and say, “Well why should you care about a silly thing like that,” and that’s probably something I’ve said. But regardless of how one feels about it, society will see that you “failed” if you get divorced. And who wants that?! Especially since we’re a gay couple, I definitely feel an increased pressure on that front. I feel like if things did fall apart, not only would we be letting down each other and invoking the pity of our family and friends, but we’d be making the gays look bad. Not that there aren’t plenty of people who think that our “lifestyle” makes the gays look bad, and it’s silly to think that any one couple is a reflection on the group as a whole, but I still FEEL it. I’m not sure where these feelings all came from, but it’s true, they’re there. For all our radical life choices, however much I might intellectually know that it’s not required or even likely, we still desperately want “forever.”

Comment #21: artdyke  on  10/27  at  03:01 PM

I always thought that that line referred to the Broadway musical:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatlemania_(musical)

Comment #22: lemmy caution  on  10/27  at  04:33 PM

Wevs, Henry. I didn’t say I “idolized” them, but it’s bullshit to say that we can’t look up to people and learn from people we admire

Wevs, Amanda.  No, you didn’t say you “idolize” them, you said they were “role models” and that you “look[ed] up to them”, which is even *more* laughable.  As usual, you miss the point by about the distance from here to the Crab Nebula: obviously, we can learn from people we admire, but to *invest* in that admiration is foolish, to act like it makes a connection between you and them is absurd, especially when it’s entertainers.  Christ, I knew long before Joe Strummer made a record that to admire rock stars or entertainers for anything other than their art was a fools errand and I wasn’t the only one, it had been a trope since at least the time of Wagner.

Posing like you’re some unique snowflake who is so superior they can’t look up to anyone is just that: a pose. And a transparent one, at that

You projected that response on to my terse remark, full stop.  I’ll clarify so that even you can understand: don’t idolize people, admire what they accomplish only, otherwise you’re setting yourself up for disappointment.

HH, Bertolt Brecht nailed it as well

Thanks for the quote, Dark Avenger.

Comment #23: Henry Holland  on  10/28  at  01:13 AM

In his book The Commitment, Dan Savage makes essentially the same point about his parents’ marriage. They met when they were young, fell in love, got married, raised a family, and lived together for many years. As they got older they grew apart and eventually got divorced and remarried other people, but ultimately they forged a good relationship with each other and with their grandkids. Because it ended in divorce, some might call theirs a failed marriage, but Savage points out that it makes more sense to call it a wildly successful one because of all the good things it brought into the world.

Being married to one person your entire life saves you the misery of going through a divorce, just as staying at one job your whole life helps you avoid nerve-wracking interviews and living in one house your whole life means you’ll never have to pack a moving truck. For some people, this really is the best way to live, but we don’t call people who do otherwise failures because we realize that life is messy and one size does not fit all. Unfortunately when it comes to issues like marriage that stray near the third rail of sex, this common sense too often goes out the window. Which is a shame, because without it, “I have a successful marriage” is just another way of saying “Hooray, my spouse just died!”

Comment #24: W.P. McNeill  on  10/28  at  01:48 AM

I’m glad that a lot of the family-oriented X-ers out there are trying really hard to create a sustainable, egalitarian view of devoted family life, but I’m suspicious of how possible it is.

Hell, I’m trying that, and I’m suspicious of how possible it is too.  The most difficult part by far is not so much external pressures, but that internalised shit that we’ve grown up with.  I reckon though that that’s going to be the case with any long term relationship, whether or not you call yourself “married”, which is after all, just a word and an excuse for a big party as far as I’m concerned.

Comment #25: Katherine  on  10/28  at  04:03 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.