December 20, 2003
AND THE SEX WOULD BE A LOT BETTER TOO
What if we stopped being so fixated on death, and gave life a chance? (The Rev Dr. Giles Fraser, The Guardian, 20/12/03)
Why are we so obsessed with what other people think of us? Why are we so concerned to fit in? Why do we submit so readily to the tyranny of the "they"? Heidegger's famous answer is that social conformity is a function of the fear of death. Standing alone is to face the full force of our own mortality. The crowd, on the other hand, is impersonal and immortal. The crowd is beyond the reach of death. Heidegger concludes that we hide from the unwelcome prospect of death by submerging our identity in the "they". The crowd anesthetises us from the thought of our own mortality. [...]Heidegger's thought suggests that a culture obsessed with death will place ultimate value upon self-sufficiency and subjectivity. Replacing cultural necrophilia with a celebration of birth would transform our social and political paradigms. "Whereas mortality is the condition that leads the self to withdraw from the world into a fundamental concern with a fate that can only be its own, natality is the condition through which we immerse ourselves into the world through the goodwill and solidarity of those who nurture us," writes Seyla Benhabib, professor of government at Yale.[...]
A faith premised upon natality would have little place for an indifference to the physical. The thought that human beings are souls trapped beneath a veil of flesh makes no sense to a mother caring for her child. Likewise Plato's conception of love as an abstract intellectual virtue - that the "beauty in souls is more honourable than that in the body" - could never have been dreamt up by someone who had given birth or spent time cuddling, kissing or tickling their kids. The love inherent within nativity is inescapably physical: beginning in the womb and continuing in the physical intimacy of feeding and cleaning.
Most important of all, a culture of natality would be inscribed with a permanent sense of hope. Too much Christian theology has immediately displaced this hope into the beyond, effectively denying its applicability to the world in which we live. Hence the importance of the Christian Aid strapline: We believe in life before death. Often Christianity is imagined as transcending the human, in favour of some other realm, thereby betraying the constitutive elements of our humanity. But again it is Plato that is the real villain, insisting, as he does, upon transcending humanity to reach a perspective "unalloyed, pure, unmixed, not stuffed full of human flesh and colours and lots of other mortal rubbish". The nativity of Christ tells a very different story, returning Christians to a concern for the human in all its vulnerability and glory. In this way, a culture of natality provides a secure theological footing for an insistence upon social justice and the significance of the environment. [...]
The western cultural imagination has been obsessed with death. No doubt, a version of Christianity that has wedded itself to Platonism is partly responsible for this unhealthy fixation. Salvation is achieved through the death of Christ. Death is the pathway to life. Properly speaking, even here it is the resurrection, the affirmation of the triumph of life over death that is being celebrated. None the less, without the corrective of natality, a certain unhealthy morbidity can easily attach itself to the Christian vision. Even the modern rite of baptism is surprisingly heavy on the death imagery, perversely preferring a theology of death and rebirth to the miracle of birth itself. The feminist theologian Grace Jantzen, who has done most to develop a theology of natality, has suggested that the evangelical emphasis on being born again is a way in which men have wrested the power of birth away from women...
That this confused mishmash of trendy, secular-inspired drivel would undoubtedly resonate with many Christians is evidence of why the faith is in such trouble in the West. The objections are so numerous. Firstly, isn’t it a tad tasteless to champion a discredited crypto-Nazi over Plato? Secondly...
Oh, never mind. Let’s just thank the vicar for giving the culture of death such a good name.
Mishmash is about right, but built-in to the Assembly of God/Southern Baptist version of Christianity is a profoundly antisocial outlook -- that the most important thing is getting to the next world in good shape.
Some years ago, when the biggest AoG preacher in the county was hopping on the Moral Majority bandwagon and trying to get his congregation out to vote, I asked his principal (but much smaller) rival in the church whether, in fact, people focused on salvation were unlikely to be enthusiastic voters. He said, "Of course."
Events proved us right, at least in this county.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at December 20, 2003 1:49 PMHeidegger was slightly more than "crypto" nazi. He was a nazi party member and supported Hitler. Plato also had his own authoritarian and totalitarian side ofcourse. Popper was good on this aspect in his "Open Society" books.
Harry:
OK, but have you read in class, rural/urban splits, tradition and the self-reliant spirit? Religion may be a part, but how much? Did the non-believers in these areas vote en masse?
A year or so ago, there was a great and very persuasive article (I think it was in National Review) about how democracy and civic virtue thrive and are protected when the majority is not politically engaged. The theme was that, left or right, intellectuals and the politically active have their place, but musn't rule the roost. The left has built a whole noxious philosophy around this (false consciousness), while the right grapples with paternalism. In the end, are we not better protected because so many don't take politics and intellectual challenges as seriously as the Brothersjudd regulars. We're like iodine--essential for life, but poisonous in excessive quantities.
So, they didn't vote (or did so rotely), for whatever reason. Did the world fall apart?
Posted by: Peter B. at December 20, 2003 7:04 PMGood points, but in my view, the MM crusade was a near-perfect test.
My view about declining voting participation is that the US is so well governed that we really don't have any problems, aside from Islam, which most of us don't yet recognize as a problem.
This would be expected in what even Orrin regards as a successful experiment. Back in the 19th century, we used to argue over what to use for money, slavery etc. We don't argue those any more.
We are reduced to arguing over school vouchers, in a world where a lot of people don't even go to school. Until about 1875, most Americans got little schooling, and until after 1945 it was unusual for an American to go to high school.
The MM hysteria was a well thought out, very well financed, very highly publicized attempt to get fundies to wrest control of the polity at a time when it could have been done. Nobody cared that much to stop them. And it was a complete bomb.
There may have been many other reasons, but it is clear that the MM was not stopped, it stopped itself. I think it was their otherworldliness.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at December 21, 2003 12:45 AM"We're like iodine--essential for life, but poisonous in excessive quantities."
Good point Peter. Jesse Ventura's victory in Minnesota was largely due to one-time voters getting excited about a personality. If every American voted, it would bring down the average intelligence of the vote considerably.
Posted by: Robert D at December 21, 2003 12:56 PM