Courage, Cults and Lack of Egregious Behavoir
It is not uncommon for skinny nerdy timid boys (speaking of myself in the middle school to early high school days) to identify as outsiders. They may be white and male and privileged, but the collection of other factors lead one to outsider feelings ... maybe even left-out-feelings. These things are somewhat universal when one finally finds a way to talk to others ... but sometimes that skill is hard learned.
And one can go on identifying in isolation or one's own outsiderness. In college, I started over, grew long hair, hung out with the cool kids who liked punk music (hardcore at the time) and even had my first girlfriend. Nonetheless, I felt alien among the particular kind of Christian liberal arts college I went to. Alien may not be right, it always felt like God didn't grant me the same number of limbs as my fellow students, or even that I was missing one or two senses. Worse because it was God purposely withheld it from me.
Practically it meant that even though I was finally successful in friendships, I still felt outside. This outsider feeling kept happening (and keeps happening) to me. It has been painful, but like anything substantial has also felt meaningful.
This morning I picked up Marilynne Robinson's book of contrarian essays published in 1998. The last essay caught my eye.
This essay explores the small coercions that we each make as a group, the language herding and the lack of moral courage (even at small cost) everyone displays in the face of these tyrannies. Her first example could easily be written about the current administration, but wasn't.
She says the term "bashing" is being used to "derail criticism of many kinds, by treating as partisan ... statements that are straightforwardly true or false." She gives the example of this statement "the disparity between rich and poor in this country exceeds any previously known in American history (putting aside the marked economic disparity between plantation owners and slaves)." This statement is verifiable or at least arguable. "But such statements are now routinely called 'Bush bashing.' In other words, something which is objectively true or false is dismissed as the slur of a hostile subgroup." This rhetorical method and the failure of courage on all sides (those afraid to be condemned for making this statement and those afraid to consider the merits of it) loses sight of any actual justice and cynically views the world as power plays between various interest groups, "self-interest groups."
But it isn't just among the opposing interest groups these petty coercions take place. She uses the term "argot" which is from the 19th century and refers to the slang among criminals, however today it is used as a term to refer to the slang among any particular group. "A great part of learning the argot of a peer group, which is a great part of claiming and assuming membership in it, is the self-editing that deletes disfavored language."
Adrienne Rich wrote "language is a map of our failures." But if we are editing out words we will never learn. Or maybe language is our common body and the shaming, both inter-group and intra-group will disembody us, will be reductionist like an Orwellian dystopia of our own making. It is ultimately cut us off from history and leave is stranded in the present.
Robinson continues: "To illustrate this point, I will make a shocking statement: I am a Christian. This ought not to startle anyone. It is likely to be at least demographically true of an American of European ancestry. I have a strong attachment to the Scriptures, and to theology, music and art Christianity has inspired. My most inward thoughts and pondering are formed by the narratives and traditions of Christianity. I expect them to engage me on my deathbed."
But she says "over the years many a good soul has let me know by one means or another that this living out of the religion/ethical/aesthetic/intellectual tradition that is so essentially compelling to me is not, shall we say, cool ... Am I the last one to get the news that this religion that has so profoundly influenced world civilizations over centuries has been ceded to the clods and the obscurantists? Don't I know that J.S. Bach and Martin Luther King [Jr] have been entirely eclipsed by Jerry Falwell?"
I must step in here and say that I have been quite tempted the last five years or so to delete Christianity. I am not certain this would be to good effect and Robinson's point is helpful to me. What I am certain of is that I want to eschew the presumptuousness and arrogant narrowing that so often happens in Christian circles. And for that reason I am glad to be outside the flock, egregious as Robinson explains in this essay.
She goes on to talk of the danger of letting herself as a liberal Christian delete the word (and tradition) from her vocabulary out of embarrassment:
In 1963, regarding a meeting with religious leaders, Abraham Joshua Heschel wrote a telagram to John F. Kennedy --- "Please demand of religious leaders personal involvement not just solemn declaration ... Let religious leaders donate one month's salary toward fund for black housing and education ... The hour calls for high moral grandeur and spiritual audacity."
And one can go on identifying in isolation or one's own outsiderness. In college, I started over, grew long hair, hung out with the cool kids who liked punk music (hardcore at the time) and even had my first girlfriend. Nonetheless, I felt alien among the particular kind of Christian liberal arts college I went to. Alien may not be right, it always felt like God didn't grant me the same number of limbs as my fellow students, or even that I was missing one or two senses. Worse because it was God purposely withheld it from me.Practically it meant that even though I was finally successful in friendships, I still felt outside. This outsider feeling kept happening (and keeps happening) to me. It has been painful, but like anything substantial has also felt meaningful.
This morning I picked up Marilynne Robinson's book of contrarian essays published in 1998. The last essay caught my eye.
This essay explores the small coercions that we each make as a group, the language herding and the lack of moral courage (even at small cost) everyone displays in the face of these tyrannies. Her first example could easily be written about the current administration, but wasn't.
She says the term "bashing" is being used to "derail criticism of many kinds, by treating as partisan ... statements that are straightforwardly true or false." She gives the example of this statement "the disparity between rich and poor in this country exceeds any previously known in American history (putting aside the marked economic disparity between plantation owners and slaves)." This statement is verifiable or at least arguable. "But such statements are now routinely called 'Bush bashing.' In other words, something which is objectively true or false is dismissed as the slur of a hostile subgroup." This rhetorical method and the failure of courage on all sides (those afraid to be condemned for making this statement and those afraid to consider the merits of it) loses sight of any actual justice and cynically views the world as power plays between various interest groups, "self-interest groups."
But it isn't just among the opposing interest groups these petty coercions take place. She uses the term "argot" which is from the 19th century and refers to the slang among criminals, however today it is used as a term to refer to the slang among any particular group. "A great part of learning the argot of a peer group, which is a great part of claiming and assuming membership in it, is the self-editing that deletes disfavored language."
Adrienne Rich wrote "language is a map of our failures." But if we are editing out words we will never learn. Or maybe language is our common body and the shaming, both inter-group and intra-group will disembody us, will be reductionist like an Orwellian dystopia of our own making. It is ultimately cut us off from history and leave is stranded in the present.
Robinson continues: "To illustrate this point, I will make a shocking statement: I am a Christian. This ought not to startle anyone. It is likely to be at least demographically true of an American of European ancestry. I have a strong attachment to the Scriptures, and to theology, music and art Christianity has inspired. My most inward thoughts and pondering are formed by the narratives and traditions of Christianity. I expect them to engage me on my deathbed."
But she says "over the years many a good soul has let me know by one means or another that this living out of the religion/ethical/aesthetic/intellectual tradition that is so essentially compelling to me is not, shall we say, cool ... Am I the last one to get the news that this religion that has so profoundly influenced world civilizations over centuries has been ceded to the clods and the obscurantists? Don't I know that J.S. Bach and Martin Luther King [Jr] have been entirely eclipsed by Jerry Falwell?"
I must step in here and say that I have been quite tempted the last five years or so to delete Christianity. I am not certain this would be to good effect and Robinson's point is helpful to me. What I am certain of is that I want to eschew the presumptuousness and arrogant narrowing that so often happens in Christian circles. And for that reason I am glad to be outside the flock, egregious as Robinson explains in this essay.
She goes on to talk of the danger of letting herself as a liberal Christian delete the word (and tradition) from her vocabulary out of embarrassment:
the standing invitation to sacrifice one's metaphysics to one's sense of comme il faut [what is proper], has had the effect of marginalizing the liberal churches and elevating fundamentalism to the status of essential Christianity. The consequences of handing over the whole of Christianity to one momentary influential fringe is clearly borne out in the silencing of social criticism and the collapse of social reform, both traditionally championed by American mainline churches, as no one seems any longer to remember.She concludes the essay saying that we no longer want information to think about but only instruction in attitude. "If an unhealthy percentage of the population gets its news from Jay Leno or Rush Limbaugh, it is because they are arbiters of attitude. They instruct viewers as to what, within their affinity groups, is safe to say and cool to think. That is, they short-circuit the functions of individual judgement and obviate the exercise of individual conscience. ... Cultures commonly employ the methods of cults, making their members subject and dependent. And nations at intervals march lockstep to enormity and disaster. A successful autocracy rests on the universal failure of individual courage."
In 1963, regarding a meeting with religious leaders, Abraham Joshua Heschel wrote a telagram to John F. Kennedy --- "Please demand of religious leaders personal involvement not just solemn declaration ... Let religious leaders donate one month's salary toward fund for black housing and education ... The hour calls for high moral grandeur and spiritual audacity."
Comments