On 5/14/08, Joey Skee posted on his blog (Occhio Contro Occhio) an article called “Sinatra, a Morality Tale.”  On that same day, I posted a comment below that article called “Careful what you wish for…” Again, on that same day, Joey responded to me in a comment called “ever changing.”  The purpose of this note is to continue the dialogue. However, because of the length of my response and tangential comments I have posted my response to Joe here on my blog.  The interested reader can read my first comment and Joe’s response in the comment section of Joe’s blog

//////////////////////////////

Joe, I will follow your method of response with some modification.  I will post your CAPS comments and respond to them in lower case.

1) DON'T BELEIVE THAT'S TRUE AT ALL. THE NOTION OF "TROUBLED ARTIST" IS A VERY 'MODERN" -- LATE 19TH-20TH CENTURIES -- CONSTRUCT. THERE ARE PLENTY OF GREAT ARTISTS WHO DIDN'T ACT LIKE EITHER CARAVAGGIO OR PICASSO.

I did not say I thought, in general, artists were “TROUBLED”.  I said that I thought that there seemed to be a “positive correlation between eccentric social behavior and genius.”  The adjective ‘eccentric’ may include ‘troubled’ but not limited to that. More importantly, I was not positing a ‘truth’, so to speak.  Rather a perception (a point of view) of a pattern of artistic behavior that Sinatra MAY be seen in.  The nature of art and artist is a perennial issue and I don’t presume to have settled it.

2) IT'S NOT ABOUT SEPARATING PERSONALITY AND ARTISTRY, IT'S ABOUT CALLING OUT REPUGNANT BEHAVIOR, ESPECIALLY OF THOSE IN POWER, EVEN IF THE POWER COMES FROM BEING A CELEBRITY.

The question I was raising was the ‘cause’ of the behavior.  How can it be explained?  Again, I ‘wonder’ (operative concept) if there is a pattern (a correlation) between behavior and the celebrity status.  I am not approving the behavior.  I am wondering about the affects celebrity status of the type Sinatra experienced has on behavior.  As a young man he arrived at the Paramount Theater in New York to thousands of girls screaming at (for) him.  How does that experience affect behavior?  It’s a question of social psychology that I’m raising.

3) SINATRA'S VOICE IS BOTH MASCULINE AND BEAUTIFUL

Yes, of course, I said the same.  However, the point I was making was about the evolution of his voice.  I think his musical genius was the ability to keep adapting to the ever-changing physiology of his vocal cords. And, it seems to me that discussions of Sinatra to often are in terms of his ‘rat pack’ days.  This, I think, ignores his very different voice in 40’s, the population he appealed to (he was the Beatles of those days) and the corresponding behavior.

4) A JERK IS A JERK WHETHER HE/SHE CREATES ART OR NOT.

Again, I’m wondering about the cause of this particular species (celebrity) of Jerkiness. Also, let me make this point.  I never liked Sinatra.  I absolutely agree that he is a JERK.  He made such a fool of himself at times that I felt sorry for him.  I have recordings of him at club appearances where he did monologues that were ridicules.  Yet, I was fascinated that as soon as he stopped talking and started singing he was transformed and transforming.  On the other hand, I loved Dean Martin (a far lesser singer) and interestingly, I believe Sinatra did also.  This is just a pet theory of mine based a few times that I saw them perform together; but, I think Sinatra was jealous of Dean from the personality point of view.

5) YOU'VE ANSWERED YOUR OWN QUESTION THERE TOM. 

Yes, my knowledge is Socratic: I know my ignorance!

6) GIL FAGIANI HAS WRITTEN ON THIS SUBJECT IN HIS 1999 ESSAY “THE ITALIAN IDENTITY OF FRANK SINATRA.” VIA: VOICES IN ITALIAN AMERICANA (FALL), 19–32.
MUCH OF THE NEW LITERATURE ON SINATRA, E.G., GENNARI, D'ACIERNO, AND OTHERS, DEVELOP THE IDEA THAT SINATRA EMBODIED ITALIANITA', HOWEVER YOU DEFINE IT. 

Yes. Sinatra was born and raised Italian American and studying the minutia of his biography leaves no doubt of the fact.  However, I would content that if one studied his stage persona exclusively and compared it with Dean Martin, one could conclude that he repressed his Italianita in such performances.  For example, if one did a random sample of his concerts and club appearances and compared them with such a sample of Martin, there would be a statistically significant difference in consciously projected Italinita.  “Consciously” being the operative tested concept; i.e. the conscious desire to project to the audience your Italinita, as opposed to a tacit subconscious manifestation. I’m not referring here to the ethnic gibing a la the rat pack antics. I believe, when Sinatra was on stage with others, the others tended to control the flow, especially Martin. Rather, I’m talking about stand-alone performances.  I could be wrong.  It’s just a theory.  But, its empirical based on my anecdotal observations.

7) YOU'RE ENGAGING IN ESSENTIALISM. I'M NOT ITALIAN-AMERICAN IF I DON'T EAT MACARONI AT SUNDAY DINNER, TALK WITH MY HANDS, SLAP MY SPOUSE, ETC., ETC. THE LIST IS ENDLESS. SOCIAL SCIENTISTS NO LONGER SEE ETHNICITY AS A CHECK LIST OF THINGS PEOPLE DO BUT A FLUID NOTION OF SELF AND GROUP CREATED IN INTERACTION WITH OTHERS.

I am absolutely not “engaging in essentialism”!!!  Essentialism is a priori.  I hope by now you are getting the drift that I am an empiricist; i.e. ‘all knowledge begins with observation’.  As an empiricist, I ask (seek) the differentiating characteristics of a species.  If we talk about the group (species) Italian American, then we must be able to say what an Italian American is; i.e. identify a differentiating characteristic(s).  I seek via observation a definition of Italian Americans.  “FLUID NOTION” is subjective.  It can be defined to suit the SOCIAL SCIENTIST Ph.D. dissertation or next journal article.  How can you compare a “self” or “group” interaction if you don’t identify (define) the group?  However, much worst, is the literature I read about Italian Americans that isn’t even based on this questionable epistemological concept.  Italian Americans are phenomenon of literature; i.e. fiction; illusions; figments of the imagination.

8) I NEVER SAID THEY DO (mistreat women). IT'S A GENDER ISSUE AND A POWER ISSUE.

I believe that it’s implied in your article.  Specifically: “…the lived experience of numerous women and children who dealt daily with the abuse and violence of patriarchal power. Writers Lorenzo Carcatterra, Rachel Guido deVries, Gianna Patriarca, Vittoria Repetto, Karen Tindori, and others have penned verse, novels, and memoirs to expose, purge, and heal their personal stories of psychological and physical brutality.”  That sounds like mistreatment to me.  But, phrasing and context can be misleading and I may be misunderstanding.

9) LET ME STOP YOU RIGHT THERE BECAUSE THIS IS A PET PEEVE OF MINE, I.E., THAT SOUTHERN ITALIAN "CULTURE" IS 1,000S OF YEARS OLD. IT'S NOT. ITALIAN-AMERICAN "CULTURE" IS VERY MUCH A HISTORICALLY DEVELOPED SET OF TRAITS THAT BEGIN TO EMERGE WITH 1ST, ECONOMIC CHANGES IN THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY; 2NDLY, THE ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL CHANGES RESULTING FROM UNIFICATION; AND 3RDLY, THE IMPACT OF EMIGRATION. IT'S MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN I'M WILLING OR ABLE TO WRITE ABOUT HERE. THERE'S PLENTY OF LITERATURE ON THE SUBJECT.

I did not say that “SOUTHERN ITALIAN CULTURE WAS THOUSANDS OF YEARS OLD”.  I said that “paternalism” is thousands of years old, trans cultural, and that paternalism was a part of southern Italian culture.  That, I believe, is an empirically verifiable proposition; at least I am aware of a great deal of empirical data to that effect.  I absolutely agree that Italian American culture is an evolutionary phenomenon.  As I said, the children and grandchildren were caught in a cultural warp.  Accordingly, the old world paternalism took a different form in the US.  But, I believe that paternalism was very much present in southern Italy long before southern Italians came to the US.  Again, it’s an empirical issue and it stands of falls on the data.

10) THERE IS NO 'ESSENCE" OF ITALIAN AMERICAN MASCULINITY. (SOUNDS LIKE A HORRIBLE IDEA FOR A COLOGNE.) AN ITALIAN AMERICAN MAN WHO IS MACHO AND ONE WHO IS NOT ARE STILL BOTH ITALIAN AMERICAN MEN (WHATEVER THAT MEANS). IT'S THE "CHECK LIST" NOTION OF ETHNICITY. YOU'VE HEARD THE ANECDOTE, NO DOUBT, OF THE TURN OF THE CENTURY SOCIAL WORKER WHO, VISITING AN ITALIAN FAMILY IN THEIR TENEMENT APARTMENT, REPORTED: “NOT YET AMERICANIZED, STILL EATING SPAGHETTI.”

I am not referring to ESSENCE.  That is a Platonic idealism. Again, it comes down to what do you mean when the subject of your sentence is Italian American.  If you have no meaning then your sentence is meaningless.  Yes, I have heard the social worker anecdote.  My question is: how do you know if you are in the apartment of an Italian American?

11) 1. TOM, YOU NEED TO UPDATE YOUR READING LIST, ESPECIALLY ALL THOSE BOOKS BY ITALIAN AMERICAN MALE HUMANITIES PROFESSORS. THEN YOU CAN TAKE IT UP WITH THEM ABOUT THEIR MACHOISMO! 

2. YOU'RE CERTIANLY NOT EQUATING "MACHO" VS. "ADVNACE DEGREES IN THE HUMANITIES?!" AS IN , "ONLY WOMEN AND SISSIES GET PH.Ds IN LITERATURE?!" I KNOW YOU'RE NOT SAYING THAT BUT THAT'S HOW IT SOUNDS.

Yes I do need to up date my reading list.  Trust me, I never stop! I wish I could.

Further, I did not make any reference to the machoismo of Italian American Humanities Professors.  The object of my sentence was the population of Italian American males and the percentage of them who pursue advanced degrees in the humanities.  Consider the Ph.D statistics on the Calandra site.  It shows a relatively few (i.e. compared to other groups) Italian Americans who pursue Ph.Ds. I have not seen the raw data.  However, I believe, if you factor out Ph.D’s in non-humanities (math science, etc.) and then factor out females; you find a relatively (compared to other groups) small percentage of Italian American males with Ph.D’s in the humanities.  Also, look at the number of major university (e.g. Ivy League) professorships and again you find a relatively (compared to other groups) percentage of Italian Americans.  All of this is empirical and can be verified.  If verified, then the question is how does one explain the relatively (compared to other groups) small parentage of Italian American men pursuing advanced degrees in the humanities?  Machoismo is a hypothesis; i.e. a possible explanation.  It in turn must be verified with other empirical data. Based on my experience and reading, I think macho is a reasonable hypothesis. I’m not saying its true.  That would entail a systemic sociological study.

12. OF COURSE NOT. JUST ONE EXAMPLE, MARTIN SCORSESE, AN ASTHMATIC CHILD WHO WANTED TO BECOME A PRIEST, ONE OF THE GREATEST CINEMA EGGHEADS IN THE WORLD, A MAJOR ITALIAN-AMERICAN ARTIST, AND I WOULD ADD -- NO INSULT INTENDED -- ZERO MACHO.

Respectfully, one cannot prove or disprove general propositions about aggregations of individuals with one anecdote.  If I say that John got a 100 on the class exam, it tells me nothing about the class as a whole. And, if I say the class average is 75, it tells me nothing about John.  Similarly, if we characterize a group in qualitative terms (i.e. not with numbers) such as macho, we are not saying anything about any particular individual in that group; rather the group as a whole.  And, it is this characterization that is the basis for comparisons with other groups.  For example, I grew up just across the river from the Mount Allegro neighborhood in Rochester, NY described by Jerre Mangione.  While I am much younger that he, the neighborhood was pretty much the same in my time (mixed ethnic).  Far more of the Jewish children went on to college from that neighborhood then Italian.  Not all the Jewish children went to college and not all the Italian children did not go to college (i.e. some went). Further, there were far more Italian boys involved with fights than Jewish.  One could go on describing these group-differentiating characteristics. In the process of characterizing respective groups, one looks for adjectives that indicate such differentials and which provide the basis for defining the Italian American group.  If macho implies less academic motivated and more physical conflict orientated, then I am moving towards a definition of the group as macho.  Macho becomes a short hand that entails a compendium of measures.  Without such expressions, every time one refers to the group, they would have to list all the measures.

Have I missed anything? If so – “Forget about it!”  It’s been real; but it’s time to wheel.  Best Tom Verso