Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group

The Mind and its Minders

By Michael J. Reznicek M.D.

The history of psychology is littered with fads and fallacies: the four humors of Hippocrates, phrenology, Freudianism and behaviorism to name a few. More recently we’ve seen the “biochemical imbalance” theory of emotional problems, which has led to a robust pharmaceutical industry to “treat” imbalances.

These seemingly disparate movements share a similar perspective on mental life, namely, that the mind is controlled by mechanistic forces. Whether the forces are hormones, genes, unconscious dynamics, reflexes or neurotransmitters, human consciousness has always been viewed as a byproduct. According to the theory, you may think you’ve been making independent decisions in life, but in reality you’ve been a marionette, performing a scripted dance.

In college I remember thinking that many psychological theories bore an uncanny resemblance to Marxism: reductionistic explanations of human behavior followed by grand prescriptions that seemed to benefit the theorists more than they helped the stated beneficiaries. Centrally-planned economies fail because they misjudge human nature. Creativity and productivity flourish only when there is political and economic freedom. When people feel they can control their destiny, they begin to create it.

Modern psychology is on the cusp of a scientific revolution, and it’s long overdue. Neuroscience has recently shown that the brain is highly plastic and constantly changes to meet the demands that individuals place on themselves. Challenge yourself mentally or physically and your brain will adapt to improve your efficiency and accuracy.

The field of genetics is also undergoing a revolution. Both thoughts and behaviors can open access to genes, which then send instructions throughout the body to reinforce whatever it is we are doing. This heretofore unknown function—what we call “epigenetics”—appears to mediate the plasticity we find in the brain. It’s now more accurate to say that the mind controls biology, rather than vice versa.

In my book, Blowing Smoke: Rethinking the War on Drugs without Prohibition and Rehab, I address one area of old-school psychology—the disease model of addictions—and argue that it neither fits nor helps the problem of drug abuse. Neuroscience and the Berlin Wall teach us something important about the human condition: people thrive when they are not held back. After working with many substance abusers, I’m convinced most of them would move toward moderation if we quit telling them they are diseased, and instead give them their freedom.

Michael J. Reznicek , M.D., is a clinical psychiatrist in Washington state with over 20 years of experience. He has practiced in the military, in hospital-based community settings, in prisons and in state hospitals. He has been a guest on numerous talk-radio shows at the local, national, and international levels to discuss drug abuse.

Addicted to Addictions

By David J. Ley

A few weeks ago, a woman came up to me after a presentation I had given, on why I believed sex addiction was a dangerous myth. She was in tears, as she told me about her son whom she had lost about a decade ago to the ravages of alcoholism. She told me that near the end of his life, her son was in a very expensive private-pay treatment facility, and called her up to ask if he had ever been sexually abused.

As this mother told me this story, and disclosed this part, a look of anguish creased her face. “I told him that I didn’t think he ever was, and he told me that at the facility, therapists had told him that not only was he an alcoholic, but that he was a sex addict as well. And that his sex addiction must have come from being sexually abused.”

The lady’s son sadly died a few weeks after that, from complications related to his severe substance abuse. For a decade, this poor woman has lived with tremendous fear and guilt, guilt that her son might have been sexually abused, something she didn’t prevent, or even know about. She was anguished that the unknown abuse, and her apparent unknowing neglect, might  have contributed to her son’s tragic life and loss.

I was the first person this woman ever heard, who said that sex addiction was a myth, a moralizing and unsubstantiated label that people throw around callously and casually. I gave her some peace, she told me, because for the first time in a decade, she could see that her son probably hadn’t been abused, and wasn’t addicted to sex. These therapists were merely riding the train of sex addiction, throwing that diagnosis at anything they could lasso with it, regardless of the consequences. If they could convince her son that he wasn’t just an alcoholic, but a sex addict too, what did they get out of it? Who knows? Maybe money. Or maybe they just saw every problem in the young man’s life as a form of addiction, and threw that label around to impress themselves.

A few decades or so ago, therapists believed they could recover memories of abuse, uncover buried memories of sexual, physical and even satanic abuse, in their patients. Because they saw symptoms they thought were related to a history of abuse, it didn’t matter that the patient said “Hey, I wasn’t ever abused.” But it turned out the patients were right and the therapists wrong. Lives were ruined, people went to jail and families were devastated because of the therapist’s well-intended arrogance.

They thought they were helping. But hundreds of lawsuits and settlements have now shown that those therapists hurt people. The myth of sex addiction hurts people too. This is why I’m challenging it every chance I can get. To demand that these therapists be responsible with the power they wield over people’s lives and fears.

David J. Ley is a clinical psychologist in practice in Albuquerque, New Mexico. He provides clinical and consultative services in numerous other states. Dr. Ley currently serves as Executive Director of a large outpatient behavioral health agency in Albuquerque and maintains a current caseload of clients. He is the author of The Myth of Sex Addiction and   Insatiable Wives: Women Who Stray and the Men Who Love Them.

X Factor? Or American Idol redux?

By Amanda S. McClain, Ph.D.

     The new American version of X Factor debuted this fall on FOX.  While it purports to be a different show than American Idol, for all intents and purposes it might as well be called “American Idol: Fall Season.”  The differences between the two programs are minimal: on X Factor there are contestants as young as 12, group auditions are permitted, and competitors may be age 12 and up (and up…).  The similarities abound: a focus on attaining your dreams, awful auditions, and a lucrative prize.  While other disparities may exist, the similarities dramatically overshadow the contrasts.

     One difference, which casual viewers may not notice, is X Factor’s lack of American emphasis.  Throughout American Idol, flags wave, iconic American cities are visited, the lighting is red, white, and blue, and the dialogue consistently references the American Dream.  On X Factor, the contestants discuss attaining their own dreams, with no mention of America, or hint of patriotism.  In a way, this personal emphasis is American as well.  After all, the traditional American Dream is to attain success through your inherent talent and skill, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.  While the X Factor contestants may not explicitly label their dreams American, by dint of appearing on an American Idol knock-off, they may as well.

     Of course, Simon Cowell is one crucial element X Factor’s first season shares with the first eight American Idol seasons.  On American Idol, Simon represented the Other, the caustic Brit unfamiliar with American civil norms.  On X Factor, his Otherness is absent and his caustic comments are expected.  Indeed, he hasn’t been nearly as scathing as in the past.  His timidity and lack of astringency have made him boring.  He’s no longer novel and audiences have grown accustomed to nasty reality TV characters.  Instead, the interactions between wacky Paula Abdul and moody Nicole Scherzinger are more interesting, as are L.A. Reid’s references to past pop hits he helped to cultivate.  In fact, L.A. Reid appears to be more like bland Randy Jackson, or Randy Jackson’s more articulate and boring relative, missing Randy’s flavor while adding more gravitas and heavyweight music industry experience.  No name-dropping Journey from this new guy.  Instead, he name-drops contemporary stars like Justin Beiber.

     Like American Idol, X Factor offers a sundry mixture of contestants: country and urban, black and white, male and female.  Like American Idol, the X Factor contestants are the most fascinating element of the program.  Over the years, American Idol featured more and more of the contestants’ back stories, strengthening audience connections with the participants through shared elements: poverty, families, and religion.  While already following the American Idol format, it behooves X Factor to follow Idol’s lead in this as well.  While Simon may have been the original draw, the contestants are what make the program worth watching.   The contestants represent America, in all its forms, and audiences enjoy watching versions of us.  The contestants on X Factor are us at home: hopeful, anxious, awed, and determined.  And American.

     What do you think?  Do you watch for the judges or the contestants?  Is one show more compelling than the other?

 

Amanda Scheiner McClain is assistant professor of communications at Holy Family University in Pennsylvania.  She is also the author of American Ideal: How American Idol Constructs Celebrity, Collective Identity, and American Discourses available now.  Learn more by clicking here. 

 

 

The Political Branding of Country Music: 10 Years Post-9/11

By Elizabeth Barfoot Christian

Some argue the sound of country music has become nearly indistinguishable from today’s pop---that it has lost in soul what it has gained in fan base over the last quarter-century. And that may be true when you listen to crossover country artists like Taylor Swift and Lady Antebellum (as well as rockers like Bret Michaels and Bon Jovi’s recent countrified-rock albums). Like many boundaries in postmodern culture, the lines between popular musical genres have been fading for quite some time.

But boundaries are a funny thing. Just when you think we’ve gotten past the need for labels… just when you think it’s OK to be a little bit country and a little bit rock ‘n roll, someone strikes a chord so offensive that lines must be drawn.

That boundary was recast in steel by country music following the world-altering events of Sept. 11, 2001.

As the molten metal of the Twin Towers melted, many hearts in the U.S. hardened. A new, angrier country was born. And from it emerged a new, angrier brand of country music as well.

Perhaps in hindsight “angry” is not a fair term to describe the artists who put to lyrics the pained, raw emotions that millions of Americans were feeling immediately after 9/11. Toby Keith, already branded a country outlaw, reportedly penned his No. 1 hit “Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)” in about 20 minutes as his response to the 9/11 attacks on America. Keith’s father, a U.S. military veteran who taught him the importance of patriotism, had died unexpectedly just six months before the terrorist attack, and Keith took out his anger at both events in song. One for honor, the other, ire.

Keith was not alone. Country music saw a huge and almost immediate economic windfall following 9 /11. County Music Television sponsored the first Freedom Concert one month after the attack and raised $5 million for victims. Keith and Alan Jackson, who wrote and recorded “Where Were You (When the World Stopped Turning”), both achieved worldwide recognition for their patriotic ballads.

Jackson and Keith, already two of the more traditional country artists, were instrumental in returning country to its more populist, working-class roots. The sound of many of today’s popular country artists may not carry the same twang it did back in the day of Haggard and Jones, but 10 years post-9/11 the message is as political and patriotic as ever—and more Americans than ever are listening.

And while the musical qualities between country and mainstream pop many have merged somewhat, the message couldn’t be more distinguishable in post-9/11 America. If you don’t believe me, just ask Natalie Maines, whose career as darling of country radio took a drastic downhill slide with one poisonous political remark. While the Dixie Chicks—whose name you dare not speak in Lubbock, Texas—will forever be outcasts to true country fans, the group has experienced a rebirth in a more mainstream market with a much more liberal-thinking fan base.

Country has definitely come to town, and people who had never listened to it are listening to and loving it on both crossover and pop radio stations in growing abundance. Country stars have swarmed the Grammys. The last two entertainers of the year have been country singers. Both top finalists in this year’s American Idol were country singers, and the quasi-partnership with Fox News, the most popular cable news channel, which continues to host annual Freedom Concerts nationwide, isn’t hurting things either. Many of Fox News’ commentary programs regularly feature country artists singing and oftentimes offering personal political opinion.

The Hollywood left entered the political arena decades ago. The “Mom and apple pie” patriotic crew is catching up through the medium of country music and conservative cable news.

Elizabeth Barfoot Christian is assistant professor of journalism at Louisiana Tech University and the editor of Rock Brands: Selling Sound in a Media Saturated Culture.

Next blog: Has MTV helped kill the music industry?

Will She or Won’t She?: Sarah Palin and the Other Splashy Maybe Candidates and the Equal Time Rule

By Paul Siegel

Political pundits have recently been focusing on those possible Republican presidential contenders who would be giving up highly lucrative media and public relations careers were they to join the 2012 presidential race. First, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum were let go from their Fox News gigs, followed by Glenn Beck, then Mike Huckabee used his Fox program to take himself out of the race. Donald Trump – the day after NBC announced it would renew The Apprentice, also bowed out of 2012 contention. Attention has switched to Sarah Palin--- would she give up her Fox role, Sarah Palin’s Alaska on TLC (as well as her lucrative lecture business, which would be at least unseemly for a presidential candidate)?

Most news stories about who’s in and who’s out have suggested that these media celebrities are weighing dollar signs and considering the limited number of waking hours in a day as they decide whether to run. Missing from most accounts is the fact that one of the few remaining federal laws regulating political content on the airwaves plays a major role.

Section 315 of the Federal Communication Act, referred to more colloquially as the Equal Time Rule, tells broadcast stations (legal scholars are divided as to how strictly the Federal Communications Commission would apply the rule to cable stations) that if they allow one candidate for office to “use” their airwaves, they must invite all candidates for the same office to enjoy equal time in a similarly prominent spot at a future date, prior to the election. When Ronald Reagan was a candidate (both for governor and president), Bedtime for Bonzo had to be put to bed for the duration of the campaign. If Fred Thompson decided to run again for senator or for some other office, reruns of his Law & Order and many movie appearances would disappear from broadcast and likely from most cable stations too.

The rule applies not only to federal elections, but local ones as well. When The Tonight Show failed to realize that they had conducted an interview with the Mayor of Burbank when he was a candidate for re-election, the NBC affiliate in Los Angeles had to give free airtime to the other 11 candidates for that much-sought-after office. Similarly, when William Branch decided to run for a town council seat in Loomis, California (population 4,000 at the time), he had to give up his on-air duties as reporter for a local Sacramento station.

Thus it is that Fox News’ not having pushed Sarah Palin out the door (at least as of this writing) has suggested to some pundits that network management may know something we don’t know—that Ms. Palin may, like Mr. Trump before her, be teasing us with the possibility of a presidential run only to drum up publicity for her various media interests, that the Equal Time Rule will be invoked against her or her Alaska.

Paul Siegel is professor of communication at the University of Hartford. He was the founding executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Kansas and Western Missouri office, and he has served on the ACLU's affiliate boards in Illinois; Washington, D.C.; and Connecticut. He is the author of Communication Law in America: Third Edition. Go to www.paulsiegelcommlaw.com for more information.

Who’s the bad guy now? Can “American Idol” Survive without Simon, and What Does This Mean to Music Sales?

By Elizabeth Barfoot Christian

It won’t last. American Idol is done. Simon IS American Idol. Can we say ‘over’?

These are just a few of the rantings of American Idol fans last year when it was announced that Simon Cowell was calling it quits after Season 9. And I counted myself among the loudest of naysayers. I mean, it would be like Snow White without the wicked queen, right? Bloody boring without the boorish Brit!

Well, we were all wrong! For once, it seems Americans were in need of some ‘nice’ in their Idol nights.

The infusion of the saccharine-sweet Jennifer Lopez and colorful rock god Steven Tyler onto the judge’s panel with mainstay Randy “Dawg” Jackson has been better than anyone predicted.

Thursday night’s announcement of the Top 24 boasted an impressive 21.8 million viewers, a 19 percent jump over last year’s comparable show. And the week before the Hollywood episode saw a season-high Thursday of 22.2 million. Wednesday, Feb. 2 had a viewership just shy of 25 million. Skeptics be damned. Advertisers take note. It seems American Idol's star is still shining bright.

Along with the return to the three-judge panel, among the best changes in Season 10 has been the second chances afforded those American Idol hopefuls whose nerves simply got the better of them. Before this season, if you forgot the words, you could forget your dreams. It didn’t matter if you were the next Elvis Presley, you were headed for heartbreak hotel at the next cut.

This year’s judges have taken a more realistic approach to untested, raw talent and realize that even stars can have a bad performance and forget the words. Right, Christina Aguilera? Fortunately, for those of us watching American Idol (or the Super Bowl), our slip-ups won’t be broadcast to millions. This type of empathy resonates the American audience.

The show’s creator Simon Fuller said the positive energy this year has emanated through the show’s entire crew, and he told online magazine NOW that he credits Tyler and Lopez with bringing a “new level of understanding . . . to the show.”

As far as the effect “Idol” will have on future music sales of its new found stars, executive producer Nigel Lythgoe told reporters that will be determined by the record-buying public. One thing’s for sure, though, this season’s American Idol has had a huge impact on new judge Steven Tyler’s music sales. Aerosmith has seen a whopping 250 increase in sales since its charismatic front man joined the “Idol” crew, according to Nielsen SoundScan.

Tyler is attracting a whole new fan base through American Idol, and folks who were already his fans but weren’t American Idol viewers are now tuning in to watch him belt out a few bars with the contenders. His exuberance is enchanting.

The season’s beautiful, bright spot JLo, (A.K.A. Jennifer Lopez) whose singing career has seen better days, premieres her new music video to “On the Floor” on the March 3 episode of the show. This will no doubt spur sales of her single, too.

Also to debut this season is the first-ever Facebook voting for American Idol faves, another sign that social networking has taken over as our communiqué of choice. It will be an interesting technological trend to see how social networking of a reality TV show affects the world of music marketing. Stay tuned.

Elizabeth Barfoot Christian is assistant professor of journalism at Louisiana Tech University and the editor of Rock Brands: Selling Sound in a Media Saturated Culture.

Next blog: What Sells Better than Sex? REVENGE!: The Taylor Swift Takeover

Everything Old is New Again: The Marketing Magic of TV’s Glee

By Elizabeth Barfoot Christian

FOX’s hit show Glee reminds me of what a music-loving Norman Lear might have developed were he producing television shows today. The edgy, envelope-pushing dramedy is making its mark on the topics of teen sexuality, teenage pregnancy, disabilities and fitting in—in ways never-before-seen on network TV.

What makes Glee different from the likes of Lear’s controversial ‘70s shows like Maude (topics included TV’s first abortion and women’s equality), All in the Family (topics included racism, bigotry, homosexuality, rape, breast cancer), and The Jeffersons (TV's first upper-middle class black couple dealt with topics of racism, suicide, gun control), along with his other shows, is that Glee is having this dialogue set to song and dance routines.

Unlike these in-your-face shows of yesteryear, Glee is using key social issues as an inroad to conquering the world of music marketing. And the results are phenomenal.

Music is often called the universal language, and Glee is proving that power as it tackles 21st century teen issues set to song, then sells you the show’s soundtracks via iTunes.

What’s so crazy about the success of Glee is that musicals and television traditionally don’t mix. Or they didn’t—until now. And now every music producer and songster in town is trying to get his tune remixed by the high schoolers in New Directions, the fictional-turned-real-life touring group from Glee. The group has taken on an eclectic choice of tunes from as far back as the 1920s and made them relevant again to a new audience—one with disposable income to burn. (According to Canadian Business magazine, Glee has the highest audience percentage with incomes more than $100,000).

The average week draws viewership of 12 million, and the first season of the show drew 19 Emmy Award nominations. Already bigger than the Beatles, Glee has had 75 hit singles in just a year and a half—outpacing Britain’s Fab Four, who had 71 from 1964 to 1996.

As of January, Glee has released nine soundtrack albums, selling five million copies. More than 13 million copies of the show’s singles have been digitally downloaded. Artists they have covered, including Madonna, Neil Diamond, Frank Sinatra, and Queen, have also seen some of their old hits rechart on the Billboard Hot 100.

Glee went on a four-city tour of 13 live concerts last summer. One Los Angeles show sold out in 30 seconds, surprising even longtime music industry insiders. Expectations for 2011 are even greater, as the audience has only grown. Glee has graced the cover of Rolling Stone and performed for President Obama. Dozens of websites have been created by Gleeks, the show’s loyal followers, and keep a constant update on characters, musicians who should get the Glee treatment, and merchandise offerings from ringtones to tangible products and where to buy them. Macy’s already has a Glee clothing line and plans to launch a home décor line this spring. “Glee” has become a brand unto itself. Entertainment Weekly writer Tim Stack called “Glee” the music industry’s “biggest story of the year.” First aided by its American Idol lead-in, it’s expected to gain further ground when in February FOX airs a special episode immediately following the Super Bowl.

High school, like music, is a universal experience. And that’s key to understanding the Glee marketing phenomenon. This is one bandwagon, it seems, to which we can literally all relate. And many in both the music and television industries are happily taking that to the bank.

Elizabeth Barfoot Christian is assistant professor of journalism at Louisiana Tech University and the editor of Rock Brands: Selling Sound in a Media Saturated Culture.

Next blog: Who’s the bad guy now? Can American Idol survive without Simon and what this could mean to music sales?

PTSD is not a modern phenomenon

By Dennis W. Brandt

Loss of courage.” “Battle fatigue.” “Shell shock.” These are just some of the historical names for a debilitating psychological condition inherent to warfare. Modern psychiatrists call it “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder,” a condition brought to the public’s attention in a post-Vietnam world but one that hardly began in the rice paddies of Southeast Asia. The recent HBO documentary, Wartorn: 1861—2010 includes the tragic story of a young Civil War soldier named Angelo M. Crapsey. I chronicled Angelo’s slip into mental torment in my book Pathway to Hell: A Tragedy of the American Civil War and was honored that HBO included a Civil War segment partly because of the book. I also served as a consultant for the show.

PTSD is a relatively neglected aspect of Civil War research. Obviously, no one can interview those involved, and people then were reluctant to discuss the matter and thus left little documentation. Moreover, historians by nature have little or no training in psychology and are understandably reluctant to psychoanalyze the dead. But what became clear during my research was that those who experienced Antietam, Gettysburg, or Shiloh felt no less terror and were no less psychologically debilitated than those who stormed the beaches at Iwo Jima and Normandy, endured the Tet Offensive, or are fighting now in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan. The Civil War became romanticized even during its veterans’ lifetimes, but it is critical to remember that those photos of reunions depicting former adversaries shaking hands across a stone wall they once tried to kill each other to possess occurred decades later and cannot expose private torments. Angelo’s case is an ideal illuminator because it is founded on extensive primary accounts.

As the U.S. military is no longer ignoring the problem, history, too, must become engaged.

Dennis W. Brandt is a freelance author-historian and the author of Pathway to Hell: A Tragedy of the American Civil War (Lehigh University Press), From Home Guards to Heroes: The 87th Pennsylvania and its Civil War Community, and Shattering the Truth: The Slandering of Abraham Lincoln.

Bret Michaels: The Remaking of a Rock God

By Elizabeth Barfoot Christian

While it’s difficult to imagine Bret Michaels as the guy next door, it wouldn’t be the hardest thing he’s ever done.

Diabetes from childhood. Drugs. Booze. Reckless sex with thousands of groupies. And a motorcycle wreck that would have killed most weren’t enough to even slow the rock god down.

No, what hasn’t killed Bret Michaels has only made him richer.

Michaels, 47, first cut his teeth on Poison back in the glory days of glam metal. As the front man for the hard rock group, he became an idol for millions of rebellious teens in the late 1980s.

Now, 25 years, an obligatory sex tape with Pamela Anderson (1998) and three seasons starring on VH-1’s No. 1 reality show Rock of Love (2007-2009), later, Michaels seems to be reinventing himself.

Michaels first showed his down-to-earth dad side to fans and viewers of Donald’s Trump’s The Celebrity Apprentice last season. He excused himself from game play for a week when his elder daughter became ill, fearing the news she was following in her father’s footsteps as a lifelong diabetic. He came back to win the entire show and is the reigning Celebrity Apprentice, earning more than $600,000 for the American Diabetes Foundation.

Shortly before the series finale, Michaels had a life-changing experience. And he is now starring in a newly created reality show on VH-1 to show us the new-and-improved Bret: the family man.

Bret Michaels: Life as I Know It premiered Oct. 18 on VH-1. But it’s a life Michaels almost didn’t get to share with us. On April 12, 2010, Michaels had an emergency appendectomy, which was only the beginning of his troubles. A week and a half later, he was again rushed to the hospital complaining of an intense headache. Michaels had suffered a massive brain hemorrhage and was in critical condition. It was touch and go for days.

And in those days, Michaels became relevant again. We cared. We Googled him. We posted on Facebook and tweeted as we collectively prayed for his recovery. We were fearful when he had a relapse in May, finding out he also had a hole in his heart that would require surgery to correct. And we cheered on May 23 when he appeared on the finale of The Celebrity Apprentice (against his doctor’s advice) and was named the winner. Even his rival for the title, Holly Robinson Peete, confessed her own child was pulling for Bret.

He released his first album in five years in July, Custom Built, which includes a controversial ballad with teen pop queen Miley Cyrus and a new country version of mega-hit “Every Rose Has Its Thorn.” Michaels also returned to the road this summer, currently touring with Lynyrd Skynyrd, but not without major reservations about the stereotypical rock star lifestyle.

In interviews in recent months, Michaels has suggested that he may finally settle down and marry longtime on-again off-again girlfriend and mother of his two daughters, Kristi Gibson. He’s been given a second chance, he said, to rock the world but also, and more importantly, to spend time with his family and be a good father.

We shall see if domesticated dad sells as well at hot rocker.

Elizabeth Barfoot Christian is assistant professor of journalism at Louisiana Tech University and the editor of Rock Brands: Selling Sound in a Media Saturated Culture.

Next blog: KISS This: The biggest rock brand in history still gets dissed from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

A Rally for Sanity. A Call for Hospitality.

By Maurice Hamington

After witnessing Fox News commentator Glenn Beck’s August 28 Rally to Restore Honor on the Washington Mall, Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart announced the Rally to Restore Sanity to take place on October 30 on another part of the Washington Mall. According to Stewart, the rally is for “the people who think shouting is annoying, counterproductive, and terrible for your throat; who feel that the loudest voices shouldn’t be the only ones that get heard; and who believe that the only time it’s appropriate to draw a Hitler mustache on someone is when that person is actually Hitler.” Given the current divisive nature of social rhetoric that demonizes homosexuals, immigrants, and Muslims in hyperbolic language and extreme metaphors, a rally for sanity is compelling. Political speech is no better. Ad hominem attacks and outlandish descriptions that avoid real discussion of issues are commonplace. Recently, Newt Gingrich described President Obama as “so outside our comprehension that only if you understand Kenyan, anticolonial behavior can you begin to piece [him] together.” It is difficult to see how such a description is helpful for advancing understanding of any issue.

What is stunning about contemporary media is that we are witnessing a role reversal in the analysis and delivery of news. When television media was limited to just a few major networks with large news bureaus, television commentators like Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow represented voices of reason. Today, with so many media outlets vying for attention, partisanship and outlandish behavior in the news media are commonplace. With the advent of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and its satirical spinoff, The Colbert Report, comedy shows that once were the purview of attention-getting slapstick, are actually playing the role of calling for rational discussion. The interviews on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report exhibit humor but also flashes of insightful and pointed discussion. Stewart is sometimes tough on political guests, but he always pursues ideas in a context of respect. The Rally to Restore Sanity is another example of the new role played by these comedy shows.

A critical aspect of moving to a more reasonable character of political and social dialogue is hospitality. The word “hospitality” tends to invoke images of behavior at dinner parties or perhaps the moniker for the hotel and restaurant industry, but it is an ancient concept with important implications for how people unfamiliar with one another get along. Ultimately, what Stewart and Colbert (in an ironic style) are attempting to do through their interviews and discussions are promote understanding between people who are unfamiliar and thus sometimes uncomfortable with one another. Their shows feature short interviews with guests from the political left and right as well as academics, activists, and Hollywood celebrities. Hospitality is about an exchange with mutual benefit to the guest and host. Such hospitality does not imply a Pollyannaish level of agreement. In fact, guest and host do not have to agree at all, but through the interaction there is a reaffirmation of each participant’s humanity. Such exchanges seem difficult given the bombastic dialogue that dominates the airways today, but it is ultimately the hope of this torn and hostile world. Sanity and hospitality are refreshing goals in a society obsessed with name-calling.

Maurice Hamington is Associate Professor of Women’s Studies and Philosophy at Metropolitan State College of Denver as well as the Director of the Institute for Women’s Studies and Services. He is the editor and a contributor to Feminism and Hospitality: Gender in the Host/Guest Relationship.