Ruskin: Beauty: Justice

A student walks into my office and asks "What is beauty?"  I reached for Roger Scruton, but better perhaps to have reached for John Ruskin's Modern Painters.  

[Beauty] is either the record of conscience, printed in things external, or it is a symbolizing of Divine attributes in matter, or it is the felicity of living things, or the perfect fulfillment of their duties and functions.  In all cases it is something Divine, either the approving voice of God, the glorious symbol of him, the evidence of his kind presence, or the obedience to his will by him induced and supported (MP 2:378).

The typical objection to such exalted, theological takes on beauty is that they (presumably) neglect justice, and this critique has legitimate targets.  "Whatever the surrounding evil, for the artist the sun is always at the zenith," wrote the abolitionist Unitarian minister Moncure Conway.  "The reformer's zeal, much less his discontent, admirable elsewhere, is inconsistent with the repose of the spirit which wins beauty to the side of the artist."  So much for artistic justice.

But Ruskin was different, and to think his aesthetic ambitious were out of touch with the spirit of reform requires no knowledge of his writings whatsoever.  On the contrary, it was just this Ruskinian take on beauty that was used to attack frivolity.  As the unjustly forgotten Yale art historian and minister James Mason Hoppin put it.

Since [Ruskin’s] prophetic voice has been heard art has risen from its degraded position as the slave of luxury, as a bourgeois conventionality, as a mere decoration of life however brilliant, and its true nature is seen that it has a vital and eternal beauty belonging to divine things (The Early Renaissance, p. iv.)

Yes, this scrambles tired dichotomies.  Phil Ochs' admirable suggestion that "protest is your diamond duty...  ah, but in such an ugly time the true protest is beauty," is not some wisp of 60's inspiration, but a return to indigenous American Protestant aesthetic theory (whether Ochs realized this or not), and boy do we need it now.  American art history, fortunately, is far more deeply rooted in the other bearded London economic theorist than in that Jewish prophet who lost religion (to borrow Mackay's formulation), Karl Marx.  But don't tell that to anyone who cherishes the myth that things only got serious with Meyer Schapiro.

Theory Weary

Terry Eagleton, the Marxist who has taken to dismantling Dawkins in the public square, has been mentioned here before. Eagleton's suspicion of critical theory didn't start with After Theory (2003). In The Ideology of the Aesthetic (1990) he wrote that

it is difficult to read the later Roland Barthes, or even the later Michel Foucault, without feeling that a certain style of meditation on the body, on pleasures and surfaces, zones and techniques, has acted among other things as a convenient displacement of a less immediately corporeal politics, and acted also as an ersatz kind of ethics There is a privileged, privatized hedonism about such discourse, emerging as it does at just the historical point where certain less exotic [i.e. classical Marxist] forms of politics found themselves suffering a setback.

This could be compared to another Nathan Glazer quote, one that encapsulates his perfectly entitled book on modernism.

Architecture in recent years has turned away from the pragmatic social and behavioral sciences to the wilder reaches of critical theory because its early efforts to design better housing turned into a failure...

In both cases, prominent thinkers (both dissatisfied Marxists to varying degrees), without dismissing theory completely, identify it with an escape from action. This is not regrettable. It is a mercy that graduate students inhale the thick smoke of theory instead of the tear gas of the riot police, and that aggressive modernists are no longer trying to reinvent the world.

If - as theory's defenders would have it - theory merely involves a disciplined reflection on one's academic methodology, then fine. Long live theory. Just as nearly everyone is a feminist if feminism is "the radical notion that women are people," so too all but the most unreflective dogmatists are "theorists" if that's the definition of theory. But there are other ways of disciplined methodological reflection. One of them is theological, which, properly understood, always leads to action. Christian theology, for example, has a proven track record of spilling over into soup kitchens.

Keeping Marxism alive

Observing Marxism in the academy, one can't help think that Terry Eagleton was right: "It looked as though what had started life as an underground movement among dockers and factory workers had turned into a mildly interesting way of analyzing Wuthering Heights."

But why give up so easily? Paul VI, in a gutsy lecture in Nazareth at the height of the Cold War (1964), once ruminated on the nature of work. Christ's hidden life of labor at Nazareth allows even the ordinary events of our workdays to be consecrated.

Nazareth, home of the "Carpenter's Son," in you I would choose to understand and proclaim the severe and redeeming law of human work... I want to greet all the workers of the world, holding up to them their great pattern, their brother who is God (533).

To the humanist, the Christian plays the card that God is human. To the Marxist, the Christian plays the card that this human was a worker. The humanist and Marxist then leave the table insisting that such cards shouldn't be in the deck, leaving the Christian with the responsibility of stewarding the chips they left behind.

I'm a free market fan, but it still needs be said: Workers of the world - worship!

Madison or Marx?

Intentional Balance
Though ill considered attempts to mix faith and politics are enough to warrant serious embarrassment (not to mention histrionic reactions well summarized here), it's a good thing the man long proclaimed "Father of the Constitution" wasn't averse to the idea.

"The education that James Madison and his friends received at the College of New Jersey [i.e. Princeton] stimulated deep thinking... and encouraged - but never demanded - a personal commitment of the student to Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord... the curriculum was not narrow, but was taught from the Christian perspective which meant that learning was developed within a framework of absolutes... the Sovereignty of God.. His providence... the sinful nature of man which needs salvation, yet the great possibilities for good that man possesses when he is guided by his maker" (15).

When formation like that goes unrepudiated, it is inevitable that the instilled principles will find their way into one's work, and the U.S. Constitution was rather influential work. But the principles were not - and this is a very important point - explicit. I once watched with pity a (in this case it's fair to say) fundamentalist Christian broadcast where a frazzled preacher tried to make the case for a Christian Constitution by citing the phrase, "the year of our Lord 1887."

Disappointing as it may be to some, the mark of Christian faith in the Constitution is not literally spelled out, nor is the mark I'm referring to an exclusively Christian one. But it is systemic to the document, and it can be found in the idea that a balance of power that is necessary because of human inability to handle power well.

The idea is a practical corollary of the doctrine of sin. To repeat, human imperfection is (thankfully) not a doctrine exclusive to Christianity, but in Madison's case Christianity was what both preserved and successfully transmitted this essential truth. Mining deeper into Madison's education gives clues as to how the relay occurred.

"Since James Madison became one of the chief architects of our political democracy... his sojourn at Nassau Hall under the tutelage of the learned Dr. John Witherspoon was of incalculable importance to the destiny of the United States" (99).

And on government, Witherspoon had this to say:

"It must be complex, so that the one principle may check the other. It is of consequence to have as much virtue among the particular members of a community as possible; but it is folly to expect that a state should be upheld by integrity in all who have a share in managing it. They must be so balanced, that when everyone draws to his own interest or inclination there must be an even poise upon the whole."

Remarking on this passage, Roger Kimball explains that

"Here we have in ovo Madison's famous prescription for controlling or neutralizing the effect of conflicting 'factions' or interests in society by balancing them one against the other."

That Witherspoon's influence was more than ephemeral is documented in the fact that Madison continually consulted with his former professor up through the Constitutional Convention itself.

Unintentional Imbalance
But the fact that, via Witherspoon's Calvinism, the doctrine of sin found its way into one of, if not the most successful state-comprising document in history is more fully appreciated when one observes what happens when such necessary balances are removed.

Explains Daniel Mahoney in an exceptionally illuminating passage,

"Marx was so preoccupied with the economic question, with uprooting all forms of economic exploitation, that he forgot the crucial importance of restricting political power. He dogmatically treated political authority as a simple byproduct of economic relations and thus summarily dismissed the protections against despotism that were the glories of the West. He lived in a civilized Europe that respected basic human liberties - liberties he took more or less for granted" (170).

Thus the unjustly neglected political theorist Bertrand de Jouvenel would write,

"'Some will say Marx had not wished this [totalitarian state]; and without doubt they are right. Others will say Marx's works lead there logically and I believe they are not wrong. It opens the road to despotic regimes, involuntarily but logically'"(ibid).

Marx was well intended, but he had no Dr. Witherspoon to inculcate into him a healthy suspicion of human nature. Thus when Marx's ideas were acted upon, we got a Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. When Madison's were, we get, it is true, a mess. But one organized in such a way that power cannot so easily flare to the level of mass murder; Churchill's "worst form of government there is, except for all the others."

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary," Madison famously wrote in Federalist 51. And we who are not angels need our checks. Conversely, by ignoring such restraints, those who claimed the heritage of Marxism fulfilled Pascal's dictum that "He who would act the angel, becomes the beast."

The Trial Continues

...that is, postmodernity's endless one.

Have Christians spent too much time critiquing postmodernity? Yes. Can you blame us? Well, it's kinda fun. But I'll admit it takes energy better spent both speaking and living the Gospel, especially considering those outside the church are often much better at critiquing postmodernity than Christians are. I've mentioned several before, but this time, here come the Marxists, with a rhythm of argument that may sound familiar:

"Postmodernist culture has produced a rich, bold, exhilarating body of work across the whole span of the arts, and has generated more than its fair share of execrable kitsch. It has pulled the rug out from beneath a number of complacent certainties, pried open some paranoid totalities, tainted some jealously guarded purities, bent some oppressive norms, and shaken some rather solid-looking foundations. It has also tended to surrender to a politically paralyzing skepticism, a flashy populism, a full-blooded moral relativism, and a brand of sophism for which, since all conventions are arbitrary anyway, we might as well conform to those of the Free World. In pulling the rug out from under the certainties of its political opponents, this postmodern culture has often enough pulled it out from under itself too, leaving itself with no more reason why we should resist fascism than the feebly pragmatic plea that fascism is not the way we do things in Sussex or Sacramento.

"Postmodernism has a quick eye for irony; but there is one irony above all that seems to have escaped it... In a powerfully estranging gesture [the revolutions of Eastern Europe have] expose[d] postmodernism as the ideology of a peculiarly jaded, defeatist wing of the liberal-capitalist intelligentsia, which has mistaken its own very local difficulties for a universal human condition in exactly the manner of the universality ideologies it denounces" (25).

"The irony of post-modernism is that while purporting to have transcended modernity, it abandons from the start all hope of transcending capitalism itself and entering a post-capitalist era. Postmodernist theory is therefore easily absorbed within the dominant cultural frame and has given rise recently to texts such as Postmodern Marketing, which attempts to utilize the insights of thinkers like Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, and Baudillard to market goods within a capitalist economy" (193).

(By the way, if you too are interested in "transcending" capitalism, I know of a writer who will get you there much quicker than Karl Marx.)

I can appreciate Christians who call themselves postmodern in order to "reach this generation" with the Gospel. But considering what may be this generation's increasing disillusionment with postmodernity, perhaps one should consider being post-postmodern for exactly the same reason.

London Day 2 - Marxinerd?

As many Protestant Christians of my generation seems to be crossing either the Thames or the Tiber (shorthand for becoming Anglican or Catholic), I found it of great interest to do a little swimming in both while in England. So on this Sunday I went to two churches right next to each other, The Brompton Oratory (which produced the Newman statue) and Holy Trinity Brompton (which produced the very popular Alpha course). But more on the differences between Catholic and Anglican London later. The most interesting Sunday experience involved a whole different kind of faith.

More DAY 2-John Updike once said that the problem with communism is that it's so far removed from the natural order that it doesn't work, whereas the problem with capitalism is that it's so close to the natural order that it's cruel. I think he was right, and find myself therefore increasingly committed to supporting capitalism because of its necessary concession to human nature, with the additional (and all too easily forgotten) element of a vigorous Church that calls attention towards and serves the poor. Until I am convinced otherwise I'll maintain that position - but what could be better than the chance to be convinced otherwise on such beautiful Fall day in London?

While in college I attended several demonstrations and marches in Chicago which were populated mainly by hard-core Marxists. At some of them in attendance were even members of (what's left of) the Black Panther Party. So I've had my conversations with the Reds - but never on the scale as I did this Sunday in London. As is well known, Speaker's corner near Hyde Park is a hopping place, and this day was no exception. Amid the throngs of predictable anti-Blair/Bush rhetoric, and fundamentalists of both Christian and Islamic persuasion, I was drawn to an acutely intelligent speaker whom I listened to for quite some time, and even engaged in a little friendly debate (which is welcomed). The speaker was a representative of this website, and make no mistake - this guy (and his significant entourage) are true believers. His basic message: America and England are built entirely on stolen land and slave capital, amounting to disproportionate disbursement of wealth, and it's time the people rise up and get get it all more evenly distributed. Marxism 101. But I really liked this guy, and got to talk with him a bit one on one afterwards. The following are some questions I posed to him publicly, and his very public responses.

Q. So you're saying history was a just dark abyss before Karl Marx?
A. (without missing a beat and very emphatically) Yes.

Q. What is your best case scenario in 50 years?
A. We live in a paradise on earth.

Q. How could that happen?
A. It already is happening in places like Venezuela. It can happen overnight.

Now I know those questions make him sound less than intelligent, but intelligent he was. At least for the regulars at Speaker's Corner, their rhetorical skills tend to be honed not in the safety of a classroom, but on the literal streets with lots of opposition - and the results are impressive. What the answers to those questions highlight for me the is the faith aspect of his commitment. Marxism has been called a secularized eschatology - and whatever your eschatology may be, faith is a necessary ingredient. This is because the essence of eschatology is that you don't see the evidence yet, and faith is "the evidence of things not seen." The man I spoke with converted to Marxism at 17 and hasn't looked back since (he must be about 35). I can safely say that I (and the Church) could certainly learn from, and be convicted by, his passion for justice. But the stumbling block for me in regards to Marxism remains to be the 20th century... because in Russia, China, Cuba, etc. we have, in my reading of history, evidence that certainly is seen.

Among the things which he said which prevented the birth of marxinerd (and there were several) was, and I quote, "Winston Churchill was the biggest [insert British expletive] who ever lived." My walk through the Cabinet Warrooms which I'll describe later left me with a distinctly different impression. Another was when our speaker thought to end on a "light note" he would recite a limerick about a topic as "light" as 9-11, describing the incident with what was for me, a bit too much zest. I never considered that perhaps, for a Marxist, the destruction of such a major symbol of capitalism, the "World Trade Center" was a good thing - But maybe for them it is. Personally, I thought it was a very, very bad thing.

The zinger was when in private I asked him whether violence was justified in bringing about such a revolution... the answer was, this time in a roundabout and qualified manner, but still with conviction... "Yes."