Biographical Narrative as Political Qualification

Jean-Paul Sartre said,"Childhood decides." But there are always some who transcend their origins, or who fail to live up to their promise, or who do both.

In the 1960s, as I understand it, there was a brief flourishing of psychohistory -- not history by psychotics (insert your own diagnosis of our profession in comments), but history which tried to integrate the teachings of psychology, then considered something of a science, into biographical analysis. The idea, it seems, was to attempt to explain the adult character, particularly historically important working relationships and modes of behavior, by the study of childhood through the lens of the (mostly Freudian) ideas of formative early relationships. This field died out pretty quickly, mostly because, as it turns out, developmental psychology was a long way from being a predictive science, at least in the hands of historians. I've wondered, though, if some of the current popularity of biographical writing doesn't date back to that era. And, thanks primarily to social and women's' historians, there is a resurgence in the study of childhood as a distinct life stage and social phenomenon which is broadening our understanding of cultural creativity and transmission, development, play, education, family, etc. Fantastic stuff, really, including creative use of sources, and the kind of historical recreation that brings the past alive and raises new questions. But biography is not destiny: that's why psychohistory is no longer a graduate field anywhere.

What seemed like a current fad, to me, the presentation of personal history as political qualification, turns out to be part of a long-standing tradition of presidential marketing. The author, a professor of journalism, takes no particular stance on the idea of presidential packaging, and even an idealist like myself admits that there's a gray area between empty marketing and persuasive presentation. But the hubbub over Barack Obama's convention speech has helped me define at least my limits.

My colleague, Ralph Luker, is a scholar of the civil rights movement, and as such is an expert on some of the finest rhetoric ever produced in English. When he proclaims Obama's convention speech"one of the great speeches of our time" it carries some weight, and others on bothsides of the political divide agree. But I read the speech, and I saw the speech, and disagreed slightly:

I'm not that moved by personal narrative in a politician. Maybe it's cold of me to say it, but I don't care if their background is 'all American' or whatever it is they're trying to present. That stuff is just too easy to say, to mythologize, to essentialize, to pick and choose and sentimentalize. I want to know what they believe, and sometimes personal history is useful, and I want to know what they can do and I want to know what they will do, and rarely is personal/family history, at least the parts they put in a speech like this, a great predictor of those things. 'Vote for me because I had the right kind of parents' doesn't work for me.

The ending was more effective, for me, because it was about values and missions and goals, and correcting the path which we are lurching down. In other words, it was stuff I agree with (in part because of my own upbringing, with folk music and all) presented with some real energy and flair and eloquence. It was a fine statement of principles and values. It was also a campaign speech, and that wouldn't have bothered me quite as much if it had been just a bit broader: it was about Obama, which was to be expected, and about Kerry/Edwards (again, lots of personal history), which was to be expected; but it wasn't about the Democratic Party, or about winning back Congress, or about state-level elections or getting out the vote.

John Edwards' speech last night was much more the kind of thing I like to hear, a mix of values, priorities and plans which gives us something to talk about concretely, some sense that the issues have been thought through, presented well. There was more 'vote for Kerry because he went to Vietnam', which increasingly reminds me of Robert Maynard Hutchins critique of tenure:"There's no reason why the University [of Chicago] should be stuck with me at 51 because I was a promising young man at 30." (Yes, I know that a lot of this is aimed at people who haven't been paying attention yet, so the repetition serves a purpose. But a little more variation in theme and tone would be nice, for those of us who pay more attention) I do expect the ticket to be on a first-name basis, but there was also something a bit over-personal about Edwards' constant use of Kerry's, which is complicated a bit by the fact that they share a first name. But overall, it was a nicely balanced work, energetically presented, with a few, mostly successful, crowd response moments that kept people attentive and involved.

Whereas I thought Obama gave about a B+ performance (So does the Chicago Tribune), Edwards' was a solid A- for me. I hope Kerry follows suit, though Rick Shenkman, another person with excellent qualifications, disagrees. I'm getting used to it.

Update: Kerry's speech was about a B+, too, though for different reasons. It was too long (he was rushing the applause and cheering, instead of letting it build), included too much stuff (the stem cell research seemed particularly awkwardly inserted), but it did make a powerful case for the relevance of his war experience under current conditions: empathy. And he managed to be critical of the President (which a lot of commentators didn't really expect) by elucidating his own ideas about how we should have done things and how he would do things were he in a position to do so. He's not the speechmaker that Edwards is, but we knew that. He is, however, eminently qualified for the position of President in these troubled times.