Frank Kogan

frank and martin are both somewhat correct -- it was a multivalent complaint, about sloppy usage as well as unjustified claims

i think the political usage -- while it is often a shorthand for a variety of different kinds of power in the world (political, military, economic, cultural...) -- rarely collapses into the kind of unclarity i'm objecting to (the nature and extent of, say, israel's influence over american politics is a bitterly contested issue, but that's because the underlying politics is bitter, and replete with extreme claims and fears, an atmosphere in which attempts at clarification sometimes collide with the interests, whether unthinking or very clearheaded, of engaged factions)

here's what i'm objecting to, cast as a fable: [band xyz] arrives in our purlieu, announcing that it comes as envoy of the emperor ["We are influenced by Television"]

the assumption seems to be that (i) the emperor's writ runs -- viz that you the listener respect and acknowledge his power; and (ii) that the emperor's imprimatur is discernible -- that the envoy can and does act in the emperor's name ; not to mention (iii) that in so far as [band xyz] are not the emperor, they can nevertheless be taken to extend and deepen his power

how and why do envoys get their power? what is the cultural equivalent (if any?) of political power? what is it about [band xyz] that demands they cede authority to others, rather than seek to foster their own?

in all of these -- in cultural terms -- the key bit, where the interesting questions lie, can be cast as something like: "if power is here, how and why is it here? in what way is it passed on? in what way is difference not the opposite of 'being influenced'"

(this doesn't even begin to tackle examples where the envoy claims the imprimatr of rival emperors: "we are influenced by Television and Funkadelic")