Feb 28
To Gene Veith and his article reviewing the views of some other religiously conservative Christians who believe that the West has lost its competitive advantage by not asserting its god of family, community, religion, and so forth. And that this is due to Post Modernism that, according to Veith, was because of a general reaction to the Nazis. Veith also asserted that because the Nazis believed something too much, that Nazism was the result of the forebearers of Post Modernism. This appeared in the Cranach blog on the Patheos website.
I agree with Veith in that the Post Modern response to the West consists of an overreaction But Veith is wrong in claiming that Post Modernism was a response solely to Nazism. Such an idea suggests that all other past expressions of Western wars, imperialism, colonialism, and ways of exploiting of and marginalizing others were acceptable if not appropriate. That makes Nazism a minimum of standard of evil when compared with what the rest of the West was doing.
Veith's claim that it was the forebearers of Post Modernism that led to Nazism because they rejected all 'moral and intellectual absolutes.' But then what drove Western wars imperialism, colonialism, racism, sexism, and so forth before that? How much of the Western Hemisphere was claimed in the name of God and how many European Christians viewed themselves as superior to this hemisphere's indigenous people as well as the Blacks who were brought over from Africa? Didn't such European Christians hold to the same moral and intellectual absolutes which Veith mentioned? And yet even before the West practiced imperialism and colonialism overseas, it had its own wars of conquest.
Post Modernism's response is not just to WW II and Nazism, but to much of the history of Western Civilization. For in Western Civilization, authoritarianism, as shown in its heavy reliance on hierarchies, ruled both at home and abroad. So Nazism simply rolled over those same beliefs in authoritarianism, one's superiority and thus one's entitlement to rule over others, that came from Western Civilization, only to put those beliefs on steroids. And just as Post Modernism's response to Western Civilization's atrocities includes an overreaction, so too has the religiously conservative Christian response to Post Modernism responded in kind.
The reason why there is religiously conservative Christian call to 'strong gods' referenced above is that we Christians have yet to learn that there are times to relate to others without authoritarianism and thus without hierarchies. And for as long as we, because of our authoritarianism, insist on opportunistically keeping unnecessary hierarchies, we put ourselves into the rifle scope of Post Modernism's sniper rifle. And the results is a justified feeling for shooting down our Christian metanarrative in the eyes of many who should be listening to the Gospel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 3
To Paul Krause and his blog post that attempts to define how Conservatives should approach American culture. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
The problem with Krause's article is the same problem that those who over elevate one specific time period over all others. For traditionalists, that time period is designated time in the past, for narcissists it consists of the present. When the elevation is too great, then what is believed is that those from either from a given time period have everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them. That principle was called unjust by Martin Luther King Jr.
What is the problem with Krause's article? It is its rigidity in thinking. First, he restricts the definition of culture to only what can be derived from the Latin root of the word. That today's working definition of culture cannot exceed what that root says. Thus, whatever is involved with polis, or politics, such as free speech,cannot also be part of the culture even though he explained that the Latin root of the word culture involves what is cared for. And that caring for involves nurturing.
What belongs to polis then and not culture? Krause says it issues like free speech, individualism, and collectivism and the free market. But if Americans have historically cared about free speech, or individualism, or collectivism, then why can such positions not be included in both culture and polis?
Likewise, when Krause talks about the contents of culture, he states that it concerns itself with our consciousness and memory as it comes to us from 'history, identity, and symbol', And he gives an example from part of Roman culture in Virgil's Aeneid. From that story came lessons and virtues such as heroism practiced by pas heroes which were valued by the Romans. He later on defends the arts. And thus Krause limits the concerns of culture to what comes from our history and the arts. They alone determine our identity. But again, aren't other concerns that are shared with polis expressed in our history and the arts so that they have become a part of our identity?
Krause then goes on to compare how conservative approach history with how the Left does. He describes conservatives who reduce culture to political issues like free speech and such are not doing culture right by their own standards because, as Krause claims, conservatism about the 'defense of culture,' not ideology. And the defense of culture is about preserving our history, identity, and 'mythical symbolism' that we have learned from a Conservative account of history and the arts. So when conservatives reduce culture to issues of polis, they sabotage their cause of supporting or promoting conservatism.
On the other hand, Krause claims that the Left understands culture because it is trying to change, completely what seems to be according to Krause, our history and identity. The Left wants us to hate our past history, identity, and so forth. So unlike the conservative version of history, the Left demonizes our past as way of changing the present.
The rigidity is all too obvious. Conservatives want Americans to love their history with its heroes and miracles, the Left wants us to hate it. Conservatives want us to preserve that past identity based on the conservative view of history, the Left want to replace from our past identity by revising our history and collective memories. But it isn't just American history that Krause mentions, it is the history of Western Civilization and Hebraism that the conservatism revolves around. And to be more specific, Krause is talking about Anglo Conservatism. There is no mention of America being multiple identities from the beginning or of having mixed feelings about our history and past identity.
America consists of many people who either don't share that history or share the wrong side of it. Our nation consists of Blacks, Latinos, and Asians all of whom have a history that creates a different identity. That shows both another rigid division in addition to an ominous implication about conservatism.
Krause seems to have left out any intersection of shared values and identity between culture and polis. He does the same with hybrids between what Conservataive and those on the Left value. And it seems that Krause's Conservatism has no room for those Americans' whose history and identity lie either outside that of Western Civilization and Hebraism or is on the wrong side of Western Civilization.
And finally, it seems to me that, according to Krause, the Conservative view of who we Americans are today should be strictly limited to who our ancestors were according to the Conservative accounts of them. Again, the rigidity in thought that implies that Conservatives everything to teach others and nothing to learn is made by Krause. Unfortunately, such is also a recipe for becoming a cult.
No comments:
Post a Comment