(So who were the relativists in religion, really, hmm? Answer below)
This is not a good summary so much as just fun things to talk about and think about.
TS Eliot was considered one of the first and best exemplars of Modernism. "The Waste Land" is usually the first work cited as the anti-Romantic shot across the bow. April is the cruelest month, breeding... (because it brings the lie of renewal, and beauty) indeed. Modernism celebrated the new works of mankind: science, cities, technology, and the philosophies of destruction of the traditional. Many of them singled out Chesterton in specific for condemnation. Eliot was a rather ironic choice for this, because while the initial line of the poem expresses the opposite idea of Whan that Aprille with its shoures soot (When April with its showers sweet), it is meant as a direct echo of Chaucer's initial line. Eliot was a classicist, not much in favor of the destruction of previous culture, rather forced into the pigeonhole of Modernism. His views also changed over the years, most notably after his conversion to Christianity (before CS Lewis) after viewing the Pieta in the Vatican, because he saw his own suffering mirrored in Christ and identified with Him with immediate tears. Conversion came in about a year.
Am I talking out of both sides of my mouth, pointing out the the Modernists were not really all that, um, modernist as individuals, and the words can mean many things? Yes, yes, I am, and doing it on purpose. The same is true of the Romantics and the Postmodernists. We make categories in order to break them, as I have said before. You should learn in school that the Enlightenment saw itself as challenging the ideas of the monarchy and the church, especially the Catholic Church; that the Romantics saw themselves as challenging the ideas of the Enlightenment; their focus was the "horrors" of the Industrial Revolution, but that was only the practical arm of the philosophical Enlightenment: that the Modernists saw themselves as challenging the ideas of the Romantics; and the Postmodernists as challenging the ideas of the Modernists. You should nail that down, and get that all clear in your head so that you could get an A on a quiz about the subject. Then you should start chipping away at it to get your real education. Eliot is not the only example of all this, but he is an excellent one, for he himself said that when people quoted him, they should include the year in which he said it, because twenty years later he might not have agreed with it.
Let us go then, you and I,The Romanticism Eliot and the other Modernists were rejecting celebrated medieval culture, and longstanding traditions of the people. It loved nature, the emotions and spontaneity, and felt the artist should be unrestrained to be original. It had a Christianity, but it was sentimental, stressing feelings and impressions.
When the evening is spread out against the sky
Like a patient etherized upon a table;
Let us go, through certain half-deserted streets,
The muttering retreats
Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels
And sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells:
Streets that follow like a tedious argument
Of insidious intent
To lead you to an overwhelming question ...
Oh, do not ask, “What is it?”
Let us go and make our visit.
In the room the women come and go
Talking of Michelangelo. (from "The Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock" TS Eliot c 1910)
CS Lewis hated Eliot's entire approach to poetry. Lewis (and Tolkien, and Chesterton, and Dorothy Sayers) was an unabashed Romantic and composed a poem in direct answer.
I am so coarse the things the poets seeEliot is interesting in a dozen ways. Charles Williams brought him and Lewis together for lunch in the 1930s and they did not like each other at all. The met again in the 1950s, when both were part of rewriting the Psalter for the Anglican prayer book, and were immediate friends. They argued about the poetic choices, and were both on the opposite side that one might expect if one had not read about them. Lewis favored modernising choices for understanding rather than retaining the older forms. Eliot wanted to preserve as much of the previous wording as possible. But both could fight without hatred at that point. Listen to how he ends Prufrock
Are obstinately invisible to me.
For twenty years I've stared my level best
To see if evening, any evening, would suggest
A patient etherised upon a table.
In vain. I simply wasn't able.
To me each evening looks far more
Like the departure from a crowded, yet a silent shore.
Of a ship whose freight is everything. Leaving behind
gracefully, finally, without farewell, marooned mankind.
(CS Lewis "Spartanactus"* c. 1925)
I grow old ... I grow old ...
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.
Shall I part my hair behind? Do I dare to eat a peach?
I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think that they will sing to me.
I have seen them riding seaward on the waves
Combing the white hair of the waves blown back
When the wind blows the water white and black.
We have lingered in the chambers of the sea
By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown
Till human voices wake us, and we drown.
These are not the words of a man who is rejecting romanticism so much as one who is disillusioned because he cannot experience it. He does not declare that mermaids do not exist, but feels regret that they will not sing to him.
And check out his serious Christian work later, like The Journey of the Magi or The Four Quartets.
The Modernists rejected folk culture because they rejected folks. If a writer or an artist was popular they felt they could not be any good. The believed in capital-C Culture, which only the elites could understand. They loved
The remaining Romantics of their time, at least the Christians, did not fear the popular and less-fashionable genres. They wrote fantasy and fairy-story, science fiction, detective fiction, When you have a (Christian culture that goes back 500 years, 1000 years, 2000 or 4000 years, or even to the beginning of time you feel less need to show your literary bona fides by being up-to-the-minute on the latest obscurantist and impenetrable works in the fashionable journals. When you read criticism of these writers it comes from two directions: the fundamentalists of the church who want to hear their favorite doctrines presented in exactly their approved terms and framings, or the fundamentalists of Culture who disdain anything popular or accessible.
Modernists say they are beholden to science and rationality, providing the only real education. The postmodernists insist they are not objective either, and their solid foundations are just shifting sands, dependent on elusive meanings. They regard all knowledge and value as socially conditioned, and are quite open about their moral relativism. They will tell you your moral absolutism only serves to perpetuate views you were trained to and maintain your power. For this reason, they draw the ire of conservatives, including Christians. Postmodernist is practically a standalone insult on the discussion sites some of us frequent.
Yet there are Christians who hail the arrival of postmodernism as the best thing to happen to Christianity in in decades or even centuries. This is because the Modernists and the continuing effect of the Enlightenment have held the day since before 1700, and those have systematically excluded Christian faith, relegating it to at best a private hobby. The Postmodernists are seen as an ally, arriving on the scene and saying "Look, there's no need to get all conceited about it, because you're no better." Christianity is back in the discussion, baby! We aren't laughed at at conferences anymore. We can smack around secular power structures with the best of them. We are all on the same footing now.
I think there are excellent points to be made about power structures, and attention to epistemology and elusive meanings are always welcome. But the embrace of postmodernism as an ally strikes me as naive and narrow. They were great allies for taking down the powerful who laughed at faith. But that is all.
Among the secular schools of thought, all of them were relativist when it came to faith, and the supposed closest ally Romanticism might have been the most dangerous, as it weakened the faith from within with its sentimentality. Our idea of heaven as the place where we meet with relatives after death - Will The Circle Be Unbroken and all that - was not common anywhere in the church until after the Civil War in America.
You can think of postmodernism as the problem if you like. Just know that many of the few Christians left in the academy look at them as the last ally. Not sure I agree, but by the process of elimination I noted above, they have a point.
*I cannot find this online, and so am taking this text on trust from a person reciting it on a podcast.
Update: A reader reports (see comments) that the poem is entitled "A Confession" but is sometimes called "Spartan Nactus." He includes the rest of the poem, including the last few lines, which are marvelous.
7 comments:
Even in an era we classify as uniform, there are doubtless dissenters and youngsters eager to show how much smarter they are than the previous generation, and a distribution of ideas and concentrations that we try to make nice and 1-dimensional. [Scientists love regimes in which they can use linear approximations.]
Screwtape can't be relied on to tell the truth, but it does seem that fashions serve his interests more than ours.
"The use of Fashions in thought is to distract the attention of men from their real dangers. We direct the fashionable outcry of each generation against those vices of which it is least in danger and fix its approval on the virtue nearest to that vice which we are trying to make endemic. The game is to have them all running about with fire extinguishers whenever there is a flood, and all crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gunwale under. Thus we make it fashionable to expose the dangers of enthusiasm at the very moment when they are all really becoming worldly and lukewarm; a century later, when we are really making them all Byronic and drunk with emotion, the fashionable outcry is directed against the dangers of the mere “understanding”. Cruel ages are put on their guard against Sentimentality, feckless and idle ones against Respectability, lecherous ones against Puritanism; and whenever all men are really hastening to be slaves or tyrants we make Liberalism the prime bogey."
A very appropriate quote
The enemy of your enemy .... probably still hates your guts.
CS Lewis's poem is called "A Confession" in his Complete Works, though I have seen it called "Spartan Nactus".
A CONFESSION
I am so coarse, the things the poets see
Are obstinately invisible to me.
For twenty years I've stared my level best
To see if evening any evening - would suggest
A patient etherized upon a table;
In vain. I simply wasn't able.
To me each evening looked far more
Like the departure from a silent, yet a crowded, shore
Of a ship whose freight was everything, leaving behind
Gracefully, finally, without farewells, marooned mankind.
Red dawn behind a hedgerow in the east
Never, for me, resembled in the least
A chilblain on a cocktail-shaker's nose;
Waterfalls don't remind me of torn underclothes,
Nor glaciers of tin-cans.
I've never known
The moon look like a hump-backed crone
Rather, a prodigy even now
Nor naturalized, a riddle glaring from the Cyclops' brow
Of the cold world, reminding me on what a place
Crawl and cling, a planet with no bulwarks, out in space.
Never the white sun of the wintriest day
Struck me as un crachat d'estaminet.
I'm like that odd man Wordsworth knew, to whom
A primrose was a yellow primrose, one whose doom
Keeps him forever in the list of dunces,
Compelled to live on stock responses,
Making the poor best that I can of dull things... peacocks, honey, the Great Wall, Aldebaran,
Silver weirs, new-cut grass, wave on the beach, hard gem,
The shapes of horse and woman, Athens, Troy, Jerusalem.
GKC's Ballad of the White Horse has a whole book of the epic poem devoted to this matter, ascribing various modernist ideas to the Vikings and the romantic ones to the hero (King Alfred the Great, in disguise as a traveling poet).
Nice post. Postmodernism is a sort of relativism, so some Christians welcome it for its inherent tolerance. A Postmodernist cannot really denounce Christian doctrines as false, and this seems preferable to the aggressive atheism of the Modernists, But the Postmodernist can and does denounce Christian doctrines for claiming to be true, so the Postmodern regime is not as lovely as it first appears. It reminds me a lot of Hinduism, which welcomed any alien god into its pantheon on the condition that those who worshiped that god accept the pantheon. The monotheistic religious cannot agree to this bargain and remain monotheistic religions. But Hinduism provides the model for religion in a diverse society, so the religion of the future will probably be Hindu in form, Diverse notions will be reconciled by calling them avatars that are essentially the same. This isn't entirely new. Humanists have long represented Christ, Mohammed, and Buddha as avatars,
CS Lewis said that the choice boiled down to Christianity vs. Hinduism - everything else was just flavors of one of those. He noted that there was the mystical and abstract, and the highly physical, both necessary in religion. But in Hinduism they are entirely separate: there are the holy men who meditate, but they do not much participate in the pagan festivals of river gods where the streets are thronged and it is dangerous for outsiders. Christianity forces the two together so that an intellectual prig like himself must go fasting to a mystery, as he said.
Post a Comment