Inspired Literature (reposted)

Simone Cantarini, Saint Matthew and the Angel, Italian, 1612 – 1648, c. 1645/1648, oil on canvas.

IN ONE of his more famous writings, William Ellery Channing addressed the topic of developing a uniquely American intellectual tradition. His message is important today in several respects.  One of his chief concerns was to counter the growing tide of materialism in Europe and America.  This, he believed, could only end in, at the individual level, unhappiness, and, at the collective level, dehumanizing institutions and dysfunctional government. Sound literature, he maintains, is founded on genius, which is itself activated when our hearts and minds are aligned with our moral and spiritual nature.  Genius does not manifest itself in a vacuum, however: inspired writers write inspiredly when there is an audience capable of receiving an inspired message.  Hence our first need is to morally prepare the public.  This, Chandler, argues, is the proper role of religion.  But religion itself must be of a higher quality.  Instead of religion based on formality, authority, dogma or superstition, we need one based on personal spiritual experience and authentic moral consciousness. . . .  read full article here (re-posted from my Christian Platonism blog)

What American Transcendentalism is Not

Ralph Waldo Emerson in 1859

THERE is today in the United States a severe cultural crisis that involves a loss of morale, hope and meaning.  This probably affects most of all young adults, who have their whole lives ahead of them, and yet must face problems like student loan debt, lack of adequate jobs, unaffordable housing,  and completely dysfunctional politics, coupled with an absence of meaningful creativity in literary and artistic sectors of society.

Behind all these problem is a more fundamental one: that the cultural mentality in the West today is one of radical materialism — and materialism, by its very nature, robs life of true meaning.  If radical materialism is the malady, then a return to cultural Idealism is the remedy. No only common sense, but also — as we have often discussed at Satyagraha — the theories and historical research of the sociologist Pitirim Sorokin give us some grounds for optimism that a more Idealistic society may emerge from modern materialism.

One way to promote a return to Idealism is to re-familiarize ourselves with the great tradition of American Transcendentalism.  This has several advantages.  First, Transcendentalism[1] is an indigenous, Americanized Idealism, peculiarly suited to our own unique circumstances, history and potentials as a nation.  Second (and partly for the preceding reason), while it has faded from view, it has merely been submerged rather than entirely eliminated from the collective consciousness — as evidenced by such examples as that, even if nobody bothers to read them, we still name streets after Emerson and Thoreau and their portraits hang in the halls of university English Departments.

Young adults today, then, ought to understand what American Transcendentalism is.  Then they will at least know there is a coherent and achievable alternative to a materialistic culture.  One obstacle, however, is that explaining Transcendentalism (or even defining the term) is notoriously difficult.  Part of the problem is that we are dealing with a cultural mentality, including states of consciousness, which are by their nature ‘intangible’ and therefore inherently difficult to literally define.

However perhaps we can be clever here, and approach the issue indirectly.  That is, let’s try here not to define what Transcendentalism is, but what it isn’t.  That will get us partway to the goal, and in the process can help eliminate certain specific misconceptions that may impede gaining a proper understanding.

Turning, then, to that supremely authoritative source of misinformation, the Google search page, we see that in response to the question “What is American Transcendentalism” it says: “Key transcendentalism [sic] beliefs were that: (1) humans are inherently good but can be corrupted by society and institutions; (2) insight and experience are more important than logic; (3) spirituality should come from the self, not organized religion; and nature is beautiful and should be respected.”

Let’s look at each statement in turn and examine how it is true, false, incomplete, or potentially misleading.

Humans are inherently good but can be corrupted by society and institutions.

The bland statement ‘humans are innately good’ is something more like Rousseau would say. Transcendentalists held much stronger beliefs: that humans are divine, with immortal souls and godlike potentials. We are, as Emerson put it, ‘gods in ruins.’  That is, we fail to live up to our divine potential.  The proper remedy is moral, intellectual and spiritual self-culture. Each individual has a solemn moral duty for such self-cultivation.

To say that human beings’ corruption comes from society and institutions is, again, Rousseauian.  For Transcendentalists, it is we are ourselves who are to blame for our failures.  In a characteristically Platonic fashion (Plato is the dominant philosophical influence on Transcendentalists), the human soul is understood as fallen — not because of external forces, but from insufficient personal virtue and wisdom.   Transcendentalists certainly wished to reform and make more just government and society. But this supposes that a free individual can elevate himself or herself to be an agent of change, despite the opposing influences of current institutions.

Insight and experience and more important than logic.

This is basically true, but incomplete. Transcendentalists saw themselves as reacting to the narrow rationalist mentality associated with John Locke and his followers. This empirical/rationalist worldview became increasingly dominant throughout the 18th and into the 19th century.  It created, in the opinion of Transcendentalists, a mechanical perspective of life — a utilitarian society where money counts more than meaning, the end always justifies the means, and atheism displaces religion in human affairs.

It is also true that Transcendentalists highly valued ‘experience.’  They saw modern man as living life abstractly — one step removed from reality (as Emerson put it, “living second-hand.”)  We respond not to things as they are, about according to rational theories that are, by their nature, limiting and distortive.

Similarly, insight was vital for Transcendentalists. This is an essential feature of Idealism, generally.  Insight pertains to realms of knowledge we have that have no connection with the sensory or material world, but instead concern what we see about our own nature by looking within.

Spirituality should come from the self, not organized religion.

Implicit in this statement — but it needs to be stated explicitly — is that Transcendentalists staunchly affirmed that spirituality ought to be central in our lives.  As to the view of organized religion, Transcendentalists were divided on this point.  Some, like Emerson and Thoreau, had little use for organized religion.  Others, however, maintained affiliations with the Unitarian and, in some cases, Congregational or Episcopal denominations.

The central issue is not organized religion, but dogmatized religion. The essential point Transcendentalists wished to affirm (which is the same affirmation made by mystics of all religious throughout the ages) is that personal spiritual experience matters more than imposed literal doctrine.  A preacher or catechism can insist, “God is Love” — yet that carries far less force than having the direct experience of God as Love.  In the final analysis, doctrine and personal experience are not mutually exclusive.  Doctrine can be useful in order that, as St. Augustine taught, belief may lead to experience.  However what is clear — and is the real issue here — is that an overemphasis on doctrine has the potential to crowd out and lessen the potential for direct religious experience. 

Nature is beautiful and should be respected.

Again, this is a weak and even revisionist version of what Transcendentalists actually believed.  To say that ‘nature is beautiful’ would hardly distinguish them from any other movement or segment of humanity.  What they actually believed — and what does make them relevant today — are stronger propositions: (1) that Nature has a spiritual basis; (2) that it is a manifestation of God, and of God’s Goodness and Love; (3) that it is also an externalization of our own soul; (4) and that Nature is like a book, intended in every detail to teach us spiritual lessons.

Therefore Nature should indeed be ‘respected’ — but not merely in the sense of that modern environmentalists might understand this.  We should most respect Nature precisely because it is a means of understanding (and relating to) God and ourselves.  This necessarily implies a strong commitment to protect the natural environment; indeed, it increases our incentive to do so.

Moreover, we must not only respect Nature, but experience it.  So, for example, while we should preserve forests and wildernesses, part of the reason for doing this is so that we can visit and receive inspiration from them.  To merely preserve and completely isolate from all human contact some natural area, while something a modern environmentalist may consider, would make much less sense to a Transcendentalist.

In sum, the main difficulty here is that any 20th or 21st ‘official’ definition (such as might appear in an online article or university text) of Transcendentalism will necessarily be revisionist.  Materialism is so strongly engrained in the modern cultural mentality that one cannot explain Idealism without sounding superstitious or atavistic.  There is some kind of unwritten consensus that we are not allowed to conduct serious public discussions on the premises that God exists and the human soul is immortal. Yet without these premises Transcendentalism and Platonic Idealism cannot be understood or  appreciated.  American Transcendentalism, then, is a great challenge to modernism: it starkly confronts us with the arbitrariness of the assumptions of materialism and atheism. It shows us that a great generation of thinkers were able to develop from these premises a philosophy of life both meaningful and with far-reaching practical significance.

Another important issue with the simplified description of Transcendentalism we’ve considered here is the omission of any reference to the literary interests of this group.  These were not people who merely had ecstatic nature experiences.  Almost without exception they applied themselves to make significant contributions to literature and education, and to the moral edification of others.  Integral to the Transcendentalist personality was the notion of harnessing the creative inspirations and energies of ‘innate genius’ in productive ways to actively contribute to the positive transformation of society.

In the near future I hope to try again to write a brief post dedicated to positively defining the key beliefs of Transcendentalism, but let this suffice for now.  Ultimately, the main way to understand it is to read main works of Transcendentalist literature.  Some recommended selections may be found in the Bibliography of this earlier article.

Note. 1. Herein for convenience the terms ‘American Transcendentalism’ and ‘Transcendentalism’ are used interchangeably; there are, of course, other versions of transcendentalist or Transcendentalist philosophy.

❧

Flowers — Stars of the Earth

THIS wonderful eulogium on flowers — arguably the best ever written — was excerpted many times throughout the 19th century, but never with the author’s name. Today well known quotes from it are wrongly attributed to Clara Lucas Balfour and others. A little research has found that the original author is William Pitt Scargill (1787–1836), an English Unitarian minister and writer.  The is published below in its entirety for the first time since 1853.

❧

A Chapter on Flowers

WHAT is the use of flowers? Why cannot the earth bring forth the fruits that feed us, and the sweet flavours that provoke our appetite, without all this ostentation? What is it to the ponderous cow, that lies ruminating and blinking hour after hour on the earth’s green lap, that myriads of yellow buttercups are all day laughing in the sun’s eye? Wherefore does the violet, harbinger of no fruit, nestle its deep blueness in the dell, and fling its wanton nets of most delicious fragrance, leading the passenger by the nose? And wherefore does the tulip, unedible root, shoot up its annual exhibition of most gaudy colour and uninterpretable beauty? Let the apple-tree put forth her blossom, and the bean invite the vagrant bee by the sweet annunciation of coming fruit and food; — but what is the use of mere flowers — blossoms that lead to nothing but brown, withered, curled-up, vegetable fragments? And why is their reign so short? Why does the gum-cistus drop its bright leaves so regularly at such brief intervals, putting on a clean shirt every day? Who can interpret the exception to the rule of nature’s plan of utility? For whom are flowers made, and for what? Are they mere accidents in a world where nought else is accidental? Is there no manifestation of design in their construction? Verily they are formed with as complete and ingenious a mechanism as the most sensitive and marvellous of living beings. They are provided with wondrous means of preservation and propagation. Their texture unfolds the mystery of its beauty to the deep-searching microscope, mocking the grossness of mortal vision. Shape seems to have exhausted its variety in their conformation; colour hath no shade, or combination, or delicacy of tint, which may not be found in flowers; and every modulation of fragrance is theirs. But cannot man live without them? For whom, and for what, are they formed? Are they formed for themselves alone? Have they a life of their own? Do they enjoy their own perfume, and delight themselves in the gaudiness of their own colours and the gracefulness of their own shapes? Man, from the habitual association of thought, sentiment, and emotion — with eyes, nose, and mouth, and the expression of the many-featured face, cannot conceive of sense or sentiment subsisting without these modifications, or some obvious substitute for them. Is there nothing of expression in their aspect? Have they not eyeless looks and lipless eloquence? See the great golden expanse of the sun-flower winding, on its tortuous stem, from east to west; praising, in the profuseness of its gaudy gratitude, the light in which it lives and glories. See how it drinks in, even to a visible intoxication, the life-giving rays of the cordial sun; while, in the quiet of its own deep enjoyment, it pities the locomotive part of the creation, wandering from place to place in search of that bliss which the flower enjoys in its own bed; fixed by its roots, a happy prisoner, whose chains are its life. Is there no sense or sentiment in the living thing? Or stand beneath the annual canopy that o’ershadows a bed of favourite and favoured tulips, and read in their colours, and their cups, the love they have for their little life. See you not that they are proud of their distinction? On their tall tremulous stems they stand, a11 it were, on tiptoe, to look down on the less favoured flowers that grow miscellaneously rooted in the uncanopied beds of the common garden. Sheltered and shielded are they from the broad eye of day, which might gaze on them too rudely; and the vigour of their life seems to be from the sweet vanity with which they drink in admiration from human eyes, in whose milder light they live. Go forth into the fields and among the green hedges; walk abroad into the meadows, and ramble over heaths; climb the steep mountains, and dive into the deep valleys; scramble among the bristly thickets, or totter among the perpendicular precipices; and what will you find there? F1owers — flowers — flowers! What can they want there? What can they do there? How did they get there? What are they but the manifestation that the Creator of the universe is a more glorious and benevolent Being than political economists, utilitarians,  philosophers, and id genus omne?

Flowers — of all things created most innocently simple  and most superbly complex: playthings for childhood, ornaments of the grave, and companions of the cold corpse in the coffin! Flowers — beloved by the wandering idiot and studied by the deep-thinking man of science! Flowers — that of perishing things are most perishing, yet of all earthly things are the most heavenly! Flowers — that, in the simplicity of their frailty, seem to beg leave to be, and that occupy, with blushing modesty, the clefts, and corners, and spare nooks of earth, shrinking from the many-trodden path, and not encroaching on the walks of man; retiring from the multitudinous city, and only then, when man has deserted the habitation he has raised, silently, and as if long waiting for implied permission, creeping over the grey wall and making ruin beautiful! Flowers — that unceasingly expand to heaven their grateful, and to man, their cheerful looks: partners of human joy, soothers of human sorrow; fit emblems of the victor’s triumphs, of the young bride’s blushes; welcome to crowded balls and graceful upon solitary graves! Flowers — that, by the unchangeableness of their beauty, bring back the past with a delightful and living intensity of recollection! Flowers — over which innocence sheds the tear of joy; and penitence heaves the sigh of regret, thinking of the innocence that has been! Flowers are for the young and for the old; for the grave and for the gay; for the living and for the dead; for all but the guilty, and for them when they are penitent. Flowers are, in the volume of nature, what the expression, “God is love,” is in the volume of revelation. They tell man of the paternal character of the Deity. Servants are fed, clothed, and commanded; but children are instructed by a sweet gentleness; and to them is given, by the good parent, that which delights as well as that which supports. For the servant there is the gravity of approbation or the silence of satisfaction; but for children there is the sweet smile of complacency and the joyful look of love. So, by the beauty which the Creator has dispersed and spread abroad through creation, and by the capacity which he has given to man to enjoy and comprehend that beauty, he has displayed, not merely the compassionateness of his mercy, but the generosity and gracefulness of his goodness.

What a dreary and desolate place would be a world without a flower! It would be as a face without a smile — a feast without a welcome. Flowers, by their sylph-like forms and viewless fragrance, are the first instructors to emancipate our thoughts from the grossness of materialism; they make us think of invisible beings; and, by means of so beautiful and graceful a transition, our thoughts of the invisible are thoughts of the good.

Are not flowers the stars of earth, and are not stars the flowers of heaven? Flowers are the teachers of gentle thoughts — promoters of kindly emotion. One cannot look closely at the structure of a flower without loving it. They are emblems and manifestations of God’s love to the creation, and they are the means and ministrations of man’s love to his fellow-creatures;  for they first awaken in the mind a sense of the beautiful and the good. Light is beautiful and good: but on its undivided beauty, and on the glorious intensity of its full strength, man cannot gaze; he can comprehend it best when prismatically separated and dispersed in the many-coloured beauty of flowers; and thus he reads the elements of beauty — the alphabet of visible gracefulness. The very inutility of flowers is their excellence and great beauty; for, by having a delightfulness in their very form and colour, they lead us to thoughts of generosity and moral beauty detached from and superior to all selfishness; so that they are pretty lessons in nature’s book of instruction, teaching man that he liveth not by bread or for bread alone, but that he hath another than an animal life.

It is a pretty species of metaphysics which teaches us that man consists of body, soul, and spirit, thus giving us two parts heavenly for one that is earthly, the intermediate leading us by a gentle ascent to the apprehension and enjoyment of the higher part of our nature; so taste and a love of the beautiful leads us to the aspiring after virtue, and to regarding virtue as something far sublimer than mere calculation of physical enjoyment. Is not the very loveliness of virtue, its disinterestedness, its uncalculating generosity, its confiding freeness, its apprehension of a beauty beyond advantage and above utility — above that utility which ministers merely to the animal existence? In its highest and purest sense, utility is beauty, inasmuch as well-being is more than being, and soul is more than body. Flowers, then, are man’s first spiritual instructors, initiating him into the knowledge, love, and apprehension of something above sensualness and selfishness. Children love flowers, childhood is the age of flowers, of innocence, and beauty and love of beauty. Flowers to them are nature’s smiles, with which they carl converse, and the language of which they can comprehend, and deeply feel, and retain through life; so that when sorrow and a hard lot presses on them heavily in after years, and they are ready to think that all is darkness, there springs up a recollection of an early sentiment of loveliness and recollected beauty, and they are reminded that there is a spirit of beauty in the world, a sentiment of kindness that cannot be easily forgotten, and that will not easily forget. What, then, is the use of flowers? Think of a world without flowers — of a childhood that loves them not-of a soul that has no sense of the beautiful — of a virtue that is driven and not attracted, founded on the meanness of calculation, measuring out its obedience, grudging its generosity, thinking only of its visible and tangible rewards; think of a state of society in which there is no love of beauty, or elegance, or ornament; and then may be seen and felt the utility of ornament, the substance of decoration, the sublimity of beauty, the usefulness of flowers.

~ William Pitt Scargill, 1832.

Bibliography

Dwight, John Sullivan. The Religion of Beauty, Dial, July 1840,  pp. 17-22.

Plotinus. Enneads 1.6 (On Beauty), tr. Stephen McKenna, 1917.

Scargill, William Pitt. A Chapter on Flowers. Amulet, vol. 7, 1832, 151−158.

Uebersax, John (ed.). Florigelium: 100 Best Inspirational Quotes About Flowers and Their Beauty. 2022.

❧❧

Aesthetic Education

HERE is an excellent speech, Artistic and Moral Beauty, delivered by Megan Beets Dobrodt at a Feb. 16, 2019 conference sponsored by the Schiller Institute.  I recommend watching the video, but the text can also be found in this article.

The basic premise of the speech is that paying more attention aesthetic education and exposure to Great Art will help to produce the positive transformation needed today to keep society from sliding into an abyss.

She first diagnoses the situation of modern society, then offers a solution.

The diagnosis is that:  (1) modern society is in desperate shape; (2) government cannot solve our problem; (3) therefore the solution must come from individuals; (4) but individuals minds are held captive and rendered helpless by, among other things, modern films, music, art, etc., which debase and degrade us, and have as their common denominators banality, bestiality and violence

The solution she finds with reference to the philosophical writings of Friedrich Schiller, most notably his Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man:  (1) within every human being there already exists the image of the Ideal Man; (2) Great Art appeals to the inner Ideal Man, helping to awaken and activate it; (3) therefore we should expose ourselves to Great Art; and (4) habituate our minds to creative accomplishment.  A society composed of such empowered individuals can solve the myriad problems we face today.

Implicit in all this is the Platonic notion of the coincidence of the True, the Beautiful and the Morally Good. When we awaken our aesthetic consciousness, we simultaneously awaken wisdom, scientific creativity, and our deepest moral sense.

There are clear connections with what she says and comments we’ve made here recently concerning the theories of Pitirim Sorokin. Sorokin likewise emphasized the connection between altruism, creativity and what he called the supraconscious.

Many today, like Ms. Beets and the Schiller Institute, are helping to remind us of the uplifting and ennobling qualities of Music, Art and Architecture.  Let us, though, not forget to include Literature and Poetry!

❧

Robert F. Kennedy’s Speech, The Mindless Menace of Violence, and its Resonance Today

“Only a cleansing of our whole society can remove this sickness from our souls.”

THIS speech of Robert F. Kennedy, ‘The Mindless Menace of Violence’, should be read, listened to and watched by all Americans today. It’s not only arguably the finest speech of his career, but one of the great political speeches of the 20th century, and perhaps of all time. Most importantly, it bears special relevance to our current situation in America, and carries even greater urgency now than when it was delivered.

Kenned gave the speech in Cleveland on April, 5, 1968, the day after Martin Luther King was assassinated.  He’d made briefer remarks in Indianapolis the evening before.  The Indianapolis speech is more widely known — but to compare the two speeches is pointless. They could be viewed as single speech, as though if at the first one’s end he said, “And now let us pause, grieve and reflect on this tragedy, and I will continue tomorrow.”

Many vital themes are woven together in this short and moving speech: that American culture is saturated with violence, where this violence comes from, the sense of community it has destroyed, and, most importantly, how this sense can be restored.

He refers repeatedly to the shortness of life and how this makes the message of overcoming violence even more urgent — and one cannot help feel that he somehow sensed his own time was growing short. Less that two months later, Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated in Los Angeles, consecrated these words with his own blood.

❧

On the Mindless Menace of Violence

Speech of Robert F. Kennedy delivered at the Cleveland City Club, Cleveland, Ohio, April 5, 1968.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I speak to you under different circumstances than I had intended to, just 24 hours ago.

But this is a time of shame, and a time of sorrow. It is not a day for politics. I have saved this one opportunity — my only event of today — to speak briefly to you about the mindless menace of violence in America which again stains our land and every one of our lives.

It’s not the concern of any one race. The victims of the violence are black and white, rich and poor, young and old, famous and unknown. They are, most important of all, human beings whom other human beings loved and needed. No one — no matter where he lives or what he does — can be certain whom next will suffer from some senseless act of bloodshed. And yet it goes on and on and on in this country of ours.

Why? What has violence ever accomplished? What has it ever created? No martyr’s cause has ever been stilled by an assassin’s bullet. No wrongs have ever been righted by riots and civil disorders. A sniper is only a coward, not a hero; and an uncontrolled or uncontrollable mob is only the voice of madness, not the voice of the people.

Whenever any American’s life is taken by another American unnecessarily — whether it is done in the name of the law or in defiance of the law, by one man or by a gang, in cold blood or in passion, in an attack of violence or in response to violence — whenever we tear at the fabric of our lives which another man has painfully and clumsily woven for himself and his children — whenever we do this, then whole nation is degraded. “Among free men,” said Abraham Lincoln, “there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and those who take such appeal are sure to lose their case and pay the cost.”

Yet we seemingly tolerate a rising level of violence that ignores our common humanity and our claims to civilization alike. We calmly accept newspaper reports of civilian slaughter in far off lands. We glorify killing on movie and television screens and we call it entertainment. We make it easier for men of all shades of sanity to acquire weapons and ammunition that they desire.

Too often we honor swagger and bluster and the wielders of force. Too often we excuse those who are willing to build their own lives on the shattered dreams of other human beings. Some Americans who preach nonviolence abroad fail to practice it here at home. Some who accuse others of rioting, and inciting riots, have by their own conduct invited them. Some look for scapegoats; others look for conspiracies. But this much is clear: violence breeds violence; repression breeds retaliation; and only a cleansing of our whole society can remove this sickness from our souls.

For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. This is a slow destruction of a child by hunger, and schools without books, and homes without heat in the winter. This is the breaking of a man’s spirit by denying him the chance to stand as a father and as a man amongst other men.

And this too afflicts us all. For when you teach a man to hate and to fear his brother, when you teach that he is a lesser man because of his color or his beliefs or the policies that he pursues, when you teach that those who differ from you threaten your freedom or your job or your home or your family, then you also learn to confront others not as fellow citizens but as enemies — to be met not with cooperation but with conquest, to be subjugated and to be mastered.

We learn, at the last, to look at our brothers as alien, alien men with whom we share a city, but not a community, men bound to us in common dwelling, but not in a common effort. We learn to share only a common fear — only a common desire to retreat from each other — only a common impulse to meet disagreement with force.

For all this there are no final answers for those of us who are American citizens. Yet we know what we must do, and that is to achieve true justice among all of our fellow citizens. The question is not what programs we should seek to enact. The question is whether we can find in our own midst and in our own hearts that leadership of humane purpose that will recognize the terrible truths of our existence.

We must admit the vanity of our false distinctions, the false distinctions among men, and learn to find our own advancement in search for the advancement of all. We must admit to ourselves that our own children’s future cannot be built on the misfortune of another’s. We must recognize that this short life can neither be ennobled or enriched by hatred or by revenge.

Our lives on this planet are too short, the work to be done is too great to let this spirit flourish any longer in this land of ours. Of course we cannot banish it with a program, nor with a resolution.

But we can perhaps remember — if only for a time — that those who live with us are our brothers, that they share with us the same short movement of life, that they seek — as do we — nothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and in happiness, winning what satisfaction and fulfillment that they can.

Surely this bond of common fate, surely this bond of common goals can begin to teach us something. Surely we can learn, at least, to look around at those of us, of our fellow man, and surely we can begin to work a little harder to bind up the wounds among us and to become in our hearts brothers and countrymen once again.

Tennyson wrote in Ulysses:

That which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Thank you, very much.

❧

Discussion

Let us draw attention to several points in the speech that bear direct relevance to our present situation in America.

First, we are as a people in a state of complete disunity.  Ironically, just as he states, the one thing that we have in common — and in that sense ‘unites’ us — is precisely our disunity.  We have each and all succumbed to the spirit of division, contention and party. Political participation consists of nothing more than reacting emotionally to biased and distorted news, and hostile comments on social media.

Second, this is suicidal.  Our welfare, hope and survival as a people depend on our unity.  A connecting bond, a sense of unifying purpose, is not a luxury, but a necessity.

Third — and here we begin to see the genius of the speech — Kennedy tells us that the bond that ought to unite us, the one that makes most sense given our peculiar history and situation in the world, is to forge a society that transcends divisiveness, hostility, and violence.  We remain the freest people in human history.  This is not because of exceptional virtue, but because history and geography has blessed us with a land of vast natural resources, immense variation, and freedom from threat of foreign invasion.  We have the resources to feed, employ, educate, and maintain the health of all.  The only thing stopping us is our own folly and perversity.

Fourth — and here again is an immensely important point — the way to achieve this unifying bond of common purpose is not through legislation or government, but “to find in our own midst and in our own hearts that leadership of humane purpose.”  Much is said in these few words. To find something means it already exists.  There is something already in our hearts that will lead us.  It is a true conscience, one founded on love, wisdom and Eternal Verities — and is by no means to be confused with a political doctrine or ideology, no matter how high-minded that ideology may sound.

Finally, Kennedy suggests that this inner truth of our hearts is intimately connected with an awareness of a certain fragility of human life.

Life is short, fraught with peril.  If we respond to this with fear and defensiveness, we withdraw into narcissism and folly, seeking to insulate ourselves from the ‘terrible truths’ with walls of illusion. Our political beliefs, more often than not, are manifestations of this defensive, constructed reality; and we respond to attacks on our defensive illusions by lashing out, fearing, hating and retreating further into delusion.

But Kennedy reminds us there is another way.  That is see that the fragility of life actually unites us with all people.  It causes us need each other, and makes things like respect, compassion and charity more deeply meaningful.  When we find again and are guided by our heart of hearts, there will be no time for or interest in violence or contention.

Let us then take his inspired words to heart in this time of greatest need.  Let each one begin an earnest search into his or her heart to find that “leadership of human purpose.”

Sources

I would encourage everyone to not only read, but listen to and watch the speech.  Unfortunately there is variability in versions offered online, so some caution must be exercised.

The best transcript I’ve found is from the University of Maryland.  This is closer to Kennedy’s actual words than what is found on the JFK library website.

The best audio version I’ve found is from the City Club of Cleveland.

While the entire speech was filmed (by multiple cameras), I have so far not found any version that has not edited out important parts.  This version is incomplete, but is high quality and succeeds in expressing Kennedy’s facial expressions and emotions better than others — things which are as important here a the words themselves.

 ❧❧

The Four Psychological Responses to Great Social Crises

THE sociologist Pitirim Sorokin conducted extensive research on cultural mentalities, including comprehensive historical studies (Sorokin 1957, 1985). He found that major shifts in mentality are often precipitated by the occurrence of multiple crises and catastrophes — wars, plagues, famines, natural disasters, revolutions, etc.  He also noted that the crises developing in the 20th century — which he correctly predicted would worsen — would likely necessitate or precipitate a major change in cultural mentality.  Hopefully, in his view, this would be a shift from radical materialism to a more idealistic, altruistic, transcendent and integrated mentality.

One of his papers (Sorokin, 1951) identified four responses to “mass-suffering and mass-frustration in social calamities.” These apply at both the individual and collective psychological level. In brief terms, the four responses are as follows:

Passivity. Faced with crises they are powerless to oppose or remedy, individuals succumb to a state of passive resignation, depression, and hopelessness. This is probably the most widespread response.

Degradation. Here the individual responds by becoming more aggressive, brutal and selfish. In the case of wars and revolutions, the person ‘identifies with the aggressor.’  The world is accepted as a bellum omnium contra omnes. Virtue is abandoned, and escape and solace are sought in various vices and follies: sex, addiction, avarice, fanaticism, chronic anger, etc. Demoralization leads to self-loathing, and further self-destructive flight into vice and delusion.

Heroism. A few individuals endowed with extraordinary resilience and talent seek to defiantly meet the social challenges with heroic feats of creativity. In the artistic realm, Beethoven serves as an example, and Edison in the scientific/technical arena.

Moral reformation. The most productive response in Sorokin’s opinion, is exemplified by the lives of great saints and reformers who appear throughout history, often in times of crisis and catastrophe. However, while great figures like St. Francis of Assisi and Mohandas Gandhi are rare, the same process of moral reformation they underwent is played out less visibly in the lives many more ‘ordinary saints.’  In each case, the trajectory of moral reformation is basically the same:  first the individual acknowledges the seriousness of their own moral failings, admitting and rejecting the innate selfishness and aggression of lower human nature (repentance; metanoia). Then, by characteristic practices such as asceticism, meditation and prayer, they seek to purify themselves from these failings, and then to grow in altruism and spirituality. During this process, they reject former social roles built on egoistic values and develop new ones based on spiritual values — often going through a period of relative (or sometimes complete) isolation in between.  Finally, with egoism conquered, they direct their energies with clear purpose and absolute focus on altruistic, charitable and creative activities aimed at improving the lives of others.  Part of this altruistic activity may involve helping others to achieve this same moral transformation.

When, perhaps under the stimulus of some exemplary figure like St. Francis or Gandhi, many individuals in society undergo this moral reformation, the mentality of the entire culture shifts from the materialistic and egoistic to the altruistic.

In short, it was Sorokin’s hope and vision (see especially, Sorokin 1948, 1954) that, as the crises of the 20th century continued and worsened, this transformation of culture would occur.  He argued that not only is this possible — as this transformation has occurred in the past — but it may be necessary today for the continuation of the human race.

Yet, even apart from the broader cultural significance, it must be remarked that this form of altruistic and spiritual transformation is something of supreme value for the individual.  Repentance and conversion are not an onerous burdens, but gateways to joy, self-realization, and liberation of the divine potentials — the arrival at our full stature as human beings.  It is within our power, then, as individuals, to cognitive reframe the meaning and significance of the crises of our times.  In crises lay great opportunities.

References

Sorokin, Pitirim A. The Reconstruction of Humanity. Beacon Press, 1948.

Sorokin, Pitirim A. Polarization in frustration and crises. Archiv Für Rechts- Und Sozialphilosophie, vol. 39, no. 2, 1951, pp. 145–163.

Sorokin, Pitirim A. The Ways and Power of Love: Types, Factors, and Techniques of Moral Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press, 1954; repr. Templeton Foundation, 2002.  [ebook]

Sorokin, Pitirim A. Social and Cultural Dynamics. Revised and abridged in one volume by the author, Transaction Books, 1957, 1985. (Originally published in four volumes, I–III, 1937; IV, 1941.)

 ❧

The Soul’s Vast Battle of Kurukshetra

PREVIOUSLY I’ve suggested (Uebersax, 2012, 2017) that a useful framework for understanding the psychological meanings of ancient myths is subpersonality theory (Lester, 2012; Rowan, 1990). Three leading hypotheses of this view are: (1) the human psyche can be meaningfully likened to a city or kingdom with many citizens (a situation which opens up many allegorical possibilities); (2) individual ‘citizens’ of the psyche may take the form of psychological complexes; and (3) there may potentially be a very large number — thousands or millions — of these mental citizens operating.  These hypothesis were derived by applying subpersonality theory to interpretation of the myths of the Old Testament (following hermeneutic principles laid down by Philo of Alexandria 2000 years ago), and Plato’s Republic (a work that makes much more sense interpreted as an allegory for the psyche than as a literal manual for civil politics.)

Independent confirmation of these hypotheses is found in a recent commentary on the Bhagavad Gita by Swami Kriyananda.  Relevant passages are shown below.  The Bhaghavad Gita is a section of the much larger work, the Sanskrit epic, the Mahabharata.  The Mahabharata describes a vast battle on the plains of Kurukshetra between two clans, the Panduvas and the Kauravas.  Allegorically, the Panduvas symbolize our virtues, and the Kauravas our vices.  Hence the epic falls into the category (and is perhaps the most notable example) of a psychomachia myth, comparable with such Greek myths as the Titanomachy (the battles of the Olympian gods against the Titans) and the Trojan War (as mythologically chronicled in Homer’s Iliad), and with the Old Testament’s various battles and contentions between the Israelites and their enemies.

Swami Kriyananda’s allegorical interpretation of the Mahabharata follows a tradition imparted to him by his teacher, Paramhansa Yogananda (1893−1952), who either inherited or derived it from the teachings of his guru, Swami Sri Yukteswar (1855−1936) — who, in turn, was influenced by his teacher, Lahiri Mahayasa (1828−1895).  While terms like “complex” are clearly modern, the basic psychological mechanisms described seem firmly planted in the yogic tradition.

Citizens of the Soul

The Bhagavad Gita presents a fascinating picture of human nature. It shows that every individual is a nation unto himself, his “population” consisting of all his qualities, both good and bad. … Over time, the innumerable experiences he encounters in life, and the way he encounters them, may develop in him innumerable “complexes.” In other words, certain aspects of his nature may insist on attack, while other aspects plead, tortoise-like, for a self-protective withdrawal. Still others may mutter helplessly in the background about “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,” while still others spread a whispering campaign of malicious gossip to get “the world” to side with them, while another whole group of mental citizens may [plead] … for tolerance, forbearance, amused acceptance, or calm non-attachment. (pp. 47−48)

There may be thousands or even millions of such complexes/citizens:

[O]ur qualities assume the characteristics of individual personalities, as we become steeped in them by a repetition of the acts that involve us in them. Because of habit, they become entrenched as true “citizens” of our own nation of consciousness. … Thousands or millions of “citizens” mill about, each one bent on fulfilling his own desires and ambitions. Sigmund Freud hardly scratched the surface ….  Freud saw only the conflict between personal desire and the expectations of society. In reality the case is infinitely more complex. (p. 50)

Ranged against his upwardly directed aspirations are innumerable downward-moving tendencies which he himself created by past wrong actions, and developed into bad habits. … the forces for error are “innumerable,” whereas the forces of righteousness are “few in number.” Countless are the ways one can slip into error, even as the outside of a large circle has room for taking many approaches to the center. Uplifting virtues are few, for they lead into, and are already close to, the center of our being. Hatred can be defined in terms of countless objects capable of being hated, whereas kindness springs from the inner self, and bestows its beneficence impersonally on all. (p. 58)

Personality Integration

That we have all these inner citizens doesn’t per se necessitate constant inner conflict, although in the usual ‘fallen’ human condition that does seem to be the case.  We need not, however, suppose that the only resolution to conflict is for our virtues to utterly destroy hosts of opposing tendencies.  Rather, the goal should be one of harmonization.

One obvious strategy, then, is to try to transform, convert or sublimate recalcitrant complexes. This is perhaps symbolically represented in Plato’s Cave Allegory, where, after the philosopher rises from the cave of ignorance, he voluntarily returns to try to educate and uplift the prisoners who remain there (Republic 7.519d−520e).

Another strategy is to consciously solicit the responses of multiple subpersonalities before embarking on some course of action:

introspection (Sanjava) is the wisest course to understanding. … if by introspection one canvasses the reactions of his own mental citizens, he will have a clearer understanding of what he ought or ought not to have done and of how he ought to behave in future. (p. 58)

This corresponds well to suggestions made by Rowan (1990) in managing conflicting subpersonalities.

Indispensable in any case — and this appears to be a key message of the Bhagavad Gita — is to withhold a strong ego-identification from any particular complex.  It is not really complexes themselves that cause conflict, but only when we mistakenly identify them as who we are.

Further study and application of subpersonality to the interpretation of myths seems warranted.  Modern psychologists can learn much about personality integration and self-realization by studying the Indian mythological epics such as the Mahabharata, Bhagavad Gita, and the Ramayana. Indian myths, Greek myths, the stories of the Old Testament, and even Plato’s Republic can be understood using a common set of hermeneutical principles.  They supply multiple maps of a common terrain, the human soul.  Their messages — salvation of the soul by means of Wisdom, virtue, holiness and, above all, love of God — are the same.

first draft 27 July 2021

References

Assagioli, Roberto. Psychosynthesis. London: Turnstone, 1975.

Swami Kriyananda. The Essence of the Bhagavad Gita Explained by Paramhansa Yogananda. Crystal Clarity Publishers, 2008. ebook  audio book 

Lester, David. A Multiple Self Theory of the Mind. Comprehensive Psychology, 2012, 1, 5.

Rowan, John. Subpersonalities: The People Inside Us. London, 1990.

Uebersax, John. Psychological Allegorical Interpretation of the Bible. Paso Robles: El Camino Real Books, 2012.

Uebersax, John. Psychopolis: Plato’s Inner Republic and Personality Theory. Satyagraha weblog. 12 January 2017.

❧ 

Preventing the Next Pandemic: David Relman on the Perils of Gain-of-Function Research

DAVID RELMAN of Stanford has been a voice of sanity and ethical responsibility concerning gain-of-function (GoF) research.  Last May, for example, he organized the letter of 18 prominent scientists to the journal, Science, arguing that the lab-leak origin hypothesis for CoV-2 —strangely suppressed by governments, news and social media, and even scientific journals — needs serious consideration.In 2014 he delivered a talk on the risks of GoF research at a National Academy of Sciences workshop.  His and similar input from other responsible scientists led to a moratorium on such research. The talk makes a slam-dunk case that the risks of GoF research outweigh the potential benefits. Key points include:

1. Social injustice. If an accident causes a pandemic, developed countries can vaccinate their populations, but poor countries cannot. So poor countries bear the brunt of the risks, without any benefits.
2. Precautionary principle. Beyond anticipated risks (e.g., a leaked virus), we can be virtually certain that unanticipated complications will occur (e.g., a new mutation). Hence all such deliberations should be heavily biased towards extreme conservativism.
3. Alternatives. We don’t need to produce a super-virus in order to be prepared for one. Safer alternatives exist.

Importantly, Relman also considers institutional biases that favor inappropriately pursuing unnecessarily risky research. These include:

1. Financial incentives by a massive and growing biotechnology industry.
2. Egoism and ‘careerism’ amongst individual scientists.

We can add two other biases which he didn’t mention (except perhaps obliquely).

First, while the input of Relman and others led to a moratorium on GoF research, the NIH waived from the moratorium anything deemed vital for “national security.”  The Defense Department (DoD) routinely develops experimental vaccines, so that if some new pandemic emerges, troops can be vaccinated and prepared for combat; hence they may have insisted that SARS CoV-2 GoF research continue for that reason. (Some news sources claim that Peter Daszak’s group received millions in DoD funding for SARS research).

Moreover, it is very possible that China has been doing SARS GoF research for many years.  In that case, the DoD can easily argue, “Since China’s doing this, we need to do it too, in order to be prepared for a bio-attack.”  Ironically, China’s rational for doing such research may be the same – so, like the nuclear arms race, it’s a vicious circle.

The second unmentioned bias is NIH bureaucracy, which, like any bureaucracy, tends to create circumstances favorable to its own expansion and increased funding.

So what can be done to prevent a human-made pandemic? Relman’s talk gives a couple of suggestions. One is greater involvement by organizations of ethical scientists (National Academy, Union of Concerned Scientists).  These need to insist to world governments that this kind of research is suicidal and must stop. Another is to involve humanists, ethicists and theologians into risk-benefit discussions.  Finally, we need improved and more standardized methods for risk assessment.

Readings

Lipsitch, Marc; Relman, David A.; Inglesby, Thomas V. Six policy options for conducting gain-of-function research. CIDRAP: Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. Online article. Mar 08, 2016.

National Research Council. Potential risks and benefits of gain-of-function research: Summary of a workshop. Washington, DC, 2015.

National Research Council. Gain-of-function research. Summary of the second symposium, March 10−11, 2016. Washington, DC, 2016.

World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST). The Precautionary Principle. March 2005. [pdf]

❧ 

Václav Havel: Living in the Truth as the Remedy for the New Totalitarianism

Abrilliant 1978 essay by Czech dissident/president Vaclav Havel has five key takeaway messages for the present crises in American politics. These relate to: (i) post-totalitarianism as a new form of mass subjugation; (ii) the expansively bureaucratic nature of post-totalitarianism; (iii) ideology as its central pillar; (iv) conformity as essential for its continuance; and (v) possible solutions — most importantly, a realignment of individual and cultural values to what he called “living in the truth“.

These are briefly explained below, though no short summary does adequate justice to Havel’s insightful and well-written essay. (See Readings for links to free versions.)

1. Post-totalitarianism

By post-totalitarianism Havel meant a new form of totalitarianism that has emerged in the modern era. If differs from “classical dictatorship” in several respects.  First, whereas classical dictatorships are unique, historical aberrations — often based on a cult of personality — post-totalitarianism is rooted in the history of ideas (e.g., draped in the mantle of 19th century socialist theories and Enlightenment political liberalism);

Second, as a government system, post-totalitarianism outlives changes in political leaders and ruling parties:

a post-totalitarian system, after all, is not the manifestation of a particular political line followed by a particular government. It is something radically different: it is a complex, profound, and long-term violation of society, or rather the self-violation of society. To oppose it merely by establishing a different political line and then striving for a change in government would not only be unrealistic, it would be utterly inadequate, for it would never come near to touching the root of the matter.

Third, whereas classical dictatorships use direct force to oppress and control the masses, post-totalitarianism uses indirect methods (see ‘Conformity’ below).

Fourth, means of overturning classical dictatorships, including revolution and elections, are ineffective here.

Even if revolt were possible, however, it would remain the solitary gesture of a few isolated individuals and they would be opposed not only by a gigantic apparatus of national (and supranational) power, but also by the very society in whose name they were mounting their revolt in the first place. (This, by the way, is another reason why the regime and its propaganda have been ascribing terroristic aims to the “dissident” movements and accusing them of illegal and conspiratorial methods.)

2. Bureaucracy

Post-totalitarianism takes the form of an expansive and omnipotent bureaucracy.  It begins with the government itself, but enlarges to assimilate business, news and communication media, education, and cultural institutions.  Fundamentally amoral and unprincipled, its main aim is to preserve itself and to expand.  Any threat to its power is met with savage (and inevitably effective) opposition.

3. Ideology

Havel’s insights about the role of ideology in post-totalitarianism are one of the essay’s greatest contributions.  Ideology supplies two main functions in a post-totalitarian system: excusatory and administrative.

Excusatory function. First, it’s the means by which the bureaucracy legitimizes itself:

Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. It offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier for them to part with these.

Ideology, [creates] a bridge of excuses between the system and the individual … a world of appearances trying to pass for reality.

The primary excusatory function of ideology, therefore, is to provide people, both as victims and pillars of the post-totalitarian system, with the illusion that the system is in harmony with the human order and the order of the universe.

It enables people to deceive their conscience and conceal their true position and their inglorious modus vivendi.

It supplies a veil behind which human beings can hide their own fallen existence, their trivialization.

Administrative function. Second, ideology supplies the means by which a totalitarian system organizes and communicates with itself.

Ideology plays a central role in the complex machinery of the post-totalitarian system. It supplies indirect instruments of manipulation which ensure in countless ways the integrity of the regime, leaving nothing to chance.

Ideology offers a fundamental world view, with which to interpret every event, activity and entity in the world of human affairs. It supplies virtually a “metaphysical order” that “guarantees the inner coherence of the totalitarian power structure,” and “integrates its communication system and makes possible the internal exchange and transfer of information and instructions.”

In order for post-totalitarian ideology to operate effectively, it must reign in every area of society. No threat to it, and no opposing alternative ideology, can be permitted to emerge. Unchallenged, the ideology becomes increasingly removed from reality.

As the interpretation of reality by the power structure, ideology is always subordinated ultimately to the interests of the structure. Therefore, it has a natural tendency to disengage itself from reality, to create a world of appearances, to become ritual. In societies where there is public competition for power and therefore public control of that power, there also exists quite naturally public control of the way that power legitimates itself ideologically. [Usually] there are always certain correctives that effectively prevent ideology from abandoning reality altogether. Under [post-totalitarianism], however, these correctives disappear, and thus there is nothing to prevent ideology from becoming more and more removed from reality, gradually turning into … a world of appearances, a mere ritual, a formalized language deprived of semantic contact with reality and transformed into a system of ritual signs that replace reality with pseudo-reality.

Yet, as we have seen, ideology becomes at the same time an increasingly important component of power, a pillar providing it with both excusatory legitimacy and an inner coherence. As this aspect grows in importance, and as it gradually loses touch with reality, it acquires a peculiar but very real strength. It becomes reality itself, albeit a reality altogether self-contained, one that on certain levels (chiefly inside the power structure) may have even greater weight than reality as such. Increasingly, the virtuosity of the ritual becomes more important than the reality hidden behind it. The significance of phenomena no longer derives from the phenomena themselves, but from their locus as concepts in the ideological context. Reality does not shape theory, but rather the reverse.

Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It pretends to persecute no one. It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to pretend nothing.

4. Conformity

Yet, Havel claims, the post-totalitarian system and its tissue of lies require the tacit or active endorsement of the masses.

Individuals need not believe all these mystifications, but they must behave as though they did, or they must at least tolerate them in silence, or get along well with those who work with them. For this reason, however, they must live within a lie. They need not accept the lie. It is enough for them to have accepted their life with it and in it.

For by this very fact, individuals confirm the system, fulfill the system, make the system, are the system…

by accepting the prescribed ritual, by accepting appearances as reality, by accepting the given rules of the game. In doing so, however, he has himself become a player in the game, thus making it possible for the game to go on, for it to exist in the first place

the moment that excuse is accepted, it constitutes power inwardly

everyone in his own way is both a victim and a supporter of the system. What we understand by the system is not, therefore, a social order imposed by one group upon another, but rather something which permeates the entire society and is a factor in shaping it.

The American post-totalitarian system is especially insidious in its use of economic and other incentives to gain the support of the population and their acceptance of self-oppression.

Even progressive liberals are heavily invested in the status quo (and even literally so, as they see their retirement portfolios grow while the Dow Jones Industrial Average increases year after year, regardless of the injustices Wall Street perpetrates to ensure profits. The public is addicted wholesale to social media like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, which collude with the security state.  A large proportion of jobs exist within oppressive corporations and government institutions.

5. Solutions

If the essence of post-totalitarianism is construction of a false reality, and if the people themselves maintain the system by living a lie within it, then, Havel argues, the only real solution is for people to begin again living in the truth.

A genuine, profound, and lasting change for the better — as I shall attempt to show — can no longer result from the victory (were such a victory possible) of any particular traditional political conception, which can ultimately be only external, that is, a structural or systemic conception. More than ever before, such a change will have to derive from human existence, from the fundamental reconstitution of the position of people in the world, their relationships to themselves and to each other, and to the universe. If a better economic and political model is to be created, then perhaps more than ever before it must derive from profound existential and moral changes in society. This is not something that can be designed and introduced like a new car. If it is to be more than just a new variation of the old degeneration, it must above all be an expression of life in the process of transforming itself. A better system will not automatically ensure a better life. In fact, the opposite is true: only by creating a better life can a better system be developed.

There is an emphasis on the word “living” here.  Havel does not mean paying lip service to the truth, or raging against lies. Living in the truth is an existential solution that occurs first at the individual level, and then at a cultural level. Words, manifestos, articles and books are not enough. The revolution is an accumulation of individual shifts in personal consciousness, to experiential anamnesis of the True, the Beautiful and the Good.

Part of the solution, Havel argues, is dissent — but (and this is very important) only certain forms of dissent. Many forms of dissent are ineffective and counter-productive.

An essential part of the “dissident” attitude is that it comes out of the reality of the human here and now. It places more importance on often repeated and consistent concrete action — even though it may be inadequate and though it may ease only insignificantly the suffering of a single insignificant citizen — than it does in some abstract fundamental solution in an uncertain future.

Another form of living in the truth is legal challenges. Legal challenges are, so to speak, an Achilles’ heel of the post-totalitarian system, because it needs to legitimize itself in laws.

In other words, is the legalistic approach at all compatible with the principle of living within the truth? This question can only be answered by first looking at the wider implications of how the legal code functions in the post-totalitarian system. In a classical dictatorship, to a far greater extent than in the post-totalitarian system, the will of the ruler is carried out directly, in an unregulated fashion. A dictatorship has no reason to hide its foundations, nor to conceal the real workings of power, and therefore it need not encumber itself to any great extent with a legal code. The post-totalitarian system, on the other hand, is utterly obsessed with the need to bind everything in a single order: life in such a state is thoroughly permeated by a dense network of regulations, proclamations, directives, norms, orders, and rules. (It is not called a bureaucratic system without good reason.)

Like ideology, the legal code functions as an excuse. It wraps the base exercise of power in the noble apparel of the letter of the law; it creates the pleasing illusion that justice is done, society protected, and the exercise of power objectively regulated.

Because the system cannot do without the law, because it is hopelessly tied down by the necessity of pretending the laws are observed, it is compelled to react in some way to such appeals. Demanding that the laws be upheld is thus an act of living within the truth that threatens the whole mendacious structure at its point of maximum mendacity.

They have no other choice: because they cannot discard the rules of their own game, they can only attend more carefully to those rules. Not to react to challenges means to undermine their own excuse and lose control of their mutual communications system.

But more than anything else Havel understands living in the truth as something apolitical. The root problem is that we are a false society composed of false selves. We must concentrate on creating a new, authentic culture, one person at a time.

Above all, any existential revolution should provide hope of a moral reconstitution of society, which means a radical renewal of the relationship of human beings to what I have called the “human order,” which no political order can replace. A new experience of being, a renewed rootedness in the universe, a newly grasped sense of higher responsibility, a new-found inner relationship to other people and to the human community — these factors clearly indicate the direction in which we must go.

In other words, the issue is the rehabilitation of values like trust, openness, responsibility, solidarity, love.

In view of this, how ironic it is that since Havel’s time a different paradigm of regime change has prevailed in Eastern Europe.  Instead of living in the truth, the US (via the CIA), globalized corporations, and dubiously-aligned NGOs have used covert activities and mass propaganda to not only to impose changes of government, but to assassinate truth.

Comparison with Sorokin

Havel’s ideas here invite comparison with those of Pitirim Sorokin, who also called for a moral reconstruction of humanity in responses to the crises of modern culture.  While their views are similar, Sorokin (armed with his massive historical studies of human culture) arguably delved more deeply into what such a reconstruction would look like, and how it might be accomplished. For one thing, he was much more aware of the role of traditional spirituality in effecting such changes. He also placed great emphasis on the experience of Love (agape) as a central positive cultural value. Finally, Sorokin understood that ultimately solutions must come from higher sources of inspiration — the supraconscious.  Without strong or definite religious convictions, Havel — for all his excellencies — could only grope in the dark about matters of spirituality. He agreed that rationalism itself could supply no answers, but could only discuss transcendence in vague terms (e.g. Havel, 1993).  More than once Havel quoted the words of Heidegger, to the effect that in the crises of modernity “Only a God can save us now.”  Whereas Havel could leave this as no more than a poetic expression, Sorokin could carry it to is logical conclusion: “Fortunately, there is a God, to whom we should turn.”

Note: Quotations have been edited and rearranged in places; please compare with original source before excerpting anything.

Readings

Havel, Václav. The power of the powerless. Paul Wilson, tr. In: John Keane (ed.), The Power of the Powerless: Citizens Against the State in Central Eastern Europe, M. E. Sharpe, 1985. Orig. publ. in International Journal of Politics, vol. 15, no. 3/4, 1985, pp. 23–96.  [pdf version] [plain text version]

Havel, Václav. The need for transcendence in the postmodern world. The Futurist, July−August 1995. Speech delivered in Independence Hall, Philadelphia, July 4, 1994.

Sorokin, Pitirim. The Reconstruction of Humanity. Boston: Beacon Press, 1948.

Sorokin, Pitirim A. The Ways and Power of Love: Types, Factors, and Techniques of Moral Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press, 1954; repr. Templeton Foundation, 2002.  [ebook]

Related posts

• Abraham Maslow: How to Experience the Unitive Life
• A Meditation on Man’s Transcendent Dignity
• Beyond the Pyramid. Being-Psychology: Maslow’s Real Contribution
• Culture in Crisis: The Visionary Theories of Pitirim Sorokin
• Pitirim Sorokin: Techniques for the altruistic transformation of individuals and society
• Transcendentalism as Spiritual Consciousness

❧ 

The Flaws of Progressive Political Theory

President Woodrow Wilson

THE following is a work in progress.  The main present purpose is simply to develop a comprehensive list of logical, epistemological, moral and practical problems with modern Progressivism. The individual sections may me expanded upon in future posts.  The point is not to denigrate the humanitarian aims of Progressivism, but ultimately to argue they may be better obtained by other means.

As an explicitly defined political ideology Progressivism has four main assumptions:

i. We can achieve continual and unlimited improvement of the human condition using science, technology, economic development and social organization;

ii. These advancements are chosen and designed by elite intellectuals and academics;

iii. Social reform policies are administered and enforced by a central government with absolute power;

iv. The mass public, being less educated than the elite and incapable of choosing their own destiny, may and must have their attitudes shaped by the elite, supported by the government and by state-controlled media and education.

This is pretty much where we’re at today in the US.

There are several obvious and important dangers of this philosophy, which we will be content here merely to list:

1. Untended side effects. Progressivism habitually fails to ask the question, “What unintended effects might a government-run social reform have?” We can take war as a paradigmatic example.  Woodrow Wilson, one of the fathers of modern American Progressivism, brought the US into World War I as a ‘war to end all wars.’  Yet in addition to killing millions, it set the stage for a still greater world war.

2. Intellectual hubris. Along with the above, Progressivism as a political ideology commits the cardinal sin of thinking it knows more than it does.

3. Flawed epistemology. Being strongly rationalistic, there is no place for the role of individual human conscience. Conscience springs from elements of the human soul that science does not understand. Progressivism relies on one little organ of human thought — rationalistic science — to develop primitive, limited theories. It then acts as though these theories are completely comprehensive and correct.

4. Playing God. Progressivism is oblivious to the possibility that there is some kind of divine (or perhaps natural evolutionary) design and plan for the human race. Would we not be better off to follow Nature’s model, and let progress occur in a more organic, gradual, harmonious and wise way?

5. Groupthink. In Progressivism, an elite cadre of intellectuals develop a theory, but never ask other opinions. Status within the elite community is contingent on promoting the consensus opinion.  Structurally the system works to produce a monolithic, limited, unchallenged set of assumptions and beliefs. Progressivism inherits and intensifies the problems that plague academia (dogmatism, narrowness of perspective, cliquism, faddism and ivory-tower disconnection from the actual experience, and needs, sensibilities and potentials of the ‘common person’) and of large bureaucracies.

6. Self-defeating authoritarianism. Liberal democracy emerged in the Enlightenment with human freedom as the ultimate social value. Its basic argument was that: (a) human beings are naturally good; (b) governments are naturally bad, and obstruct the natural tendency of free individuals to seek and gain their own happiness; and (c) therefore the ultimate and true role of government is to maximize human freedom and self-determination.  But Progressivism completely inverts this: it assumes individuals are not able to decide for themselves how to attain happiness; and that in the interests of government led social-reform programs, individual liberty may and must be actively limited.

7. Power corrupts. If power is given to an elite, then no matter how benevolent the original goals, there is no way to prevent the rulers from using the power unjustly. Even if the elite itself retains ideological purity, the authoritarian institutions it sets up will likely be co-opted and corrupted by special interests.

8. Reductionism. It’s claim to being scientific and its invoking of the authority of science requires it to ignore or deny alternative or competing paradigms. There is no room for religious or metaphysical mysticism. There is no metaphysics at all, in fact. Idealism, Transcendentalism and Romanticism are eliminated, despite the fact that these were instrumental in the 19th century social progress movement.

9. Social outcomes must be quantifiable and empirically observable, which necessitates them being materialistic and economic. Human progress is equated exclusively with things like jobs, years of school education, income and wealth. There can be no place for the sorts of things that humankind has traditionally considered most important: happiness, a meaningful life, love, self-respect, and inner moral virtue. This hyper-rationalism leads to policies that are superficially plausible ‘in paper,’ yet in practice defy common sense.

❧ 

Related Reading

Max Leyf, Seven Reservations with Utilitarianism. Theoria Press Website, 2021-05-10.