Cunning as Serpents?

Some Notes on Western Democracy

2009-09-17T15:51:00.009-04:00

In the May/June 2004 edition of Foreign Affairs, Russian expert Richard Pipes [wiki] wrote an article about how Russians view the world, and he had this to say about the Russian view of democracy:

Democracy is widely viewed as a fraud. There is a prevalent perception that Russian's politics have been 'privatized' and are controlled by powerful clans. Seventy-eight percent of respondents in a 2003 survey said that democracy is a facade for a government controlled by rich and powerful cliques. Only 22 percent expressed a preference for democracy, whereas 53 percent positively disliked it.

Pipes gives some insightful reasons related to Russian history and culture why this may be true (if Moscow-based polling companies can be free of Putin's control). But for our part, perhaps this is also because many of us portray our form of government in a simplistic way that seems to ignore realities that Russians perceive more readily. For example, the very fact that we call our form of government a "democracy" rather than a republic seems like it ignores the fact that the people don't directly run the government--our representatives do.

Political theorists since Plato have noted a natural tendency to slide toward democracy and majority tyranny. We exhibit it ourselves in many ways: in our use of the word "democracy" over "republic", in our changing the Constitution to allow the popular election of senators, in the obsolescence of the electoral college, and in the popular victory of the concept that representatives must execute constituents' will over the complementary notion that they also serve as experts when the common man cannot, and therefore we elect representatives to use their best judgment to serve both local and national good (I'd cite Edmund Burke and George Washington here if I weren't sitting at a Starbucks).

It may be more relevant to say that we have an open society. Government for Aristotle was simply how a society is constituted and organizes and governs itself. And there is a complex interplay of societal movers that the term "government" doesn't capture--lawmakers to be sure, but also businesses, entertainers, scholars, and the institutions of culture such as churches, schools, the media, and anyone with proficiency in communication/propaganda skills, overt or covert. And as movers of society, they also influence the government of that society. While it is an American innovation to be able to govern in a more open way than the world was used to in the 18th century, it is a complementary American failing to forget that the government of a society occurs in more than simply the visible structures, but through all the open, subtle, and hidden influences listed above. Yet it is these influences that other cultures are better at dealing with since they are NOT living the American political experiment. So we won't be able to promote democracy if authoritarians think we are ignorant of these layers of society. We will have to make our defense/explanation of democracy a bit more richer and nuanced.

* * *

Pipes makes another point that pro-democracy apologists should note:

When asked to choose between "freedom" and "order", 88 percent of respondents in Voronezh Province expressed preference for order, seemingly unaware that the two outcomes are not mutually exclusive and that in Western democracies they reinforce each other. Only 11 percent said they would be unwilling to surrender their freedoms of speech, press, or movement in exchange for stability.

First, note Pipes' assertion that in Western societies, freedom and order reinforce each other. How do they do this? The answer is in the very next sentence: surrendering the practice of speech and movement in order to create stability. The fact is, we do this ourselves, but on a personal basis. Members of western societies must learn to make personal choices to use their freedom in a way that is conducive to stability in their own lives, and that creates stability in society and government.

In other words, we must learn to be virtuous. Our governments do not require virtue legally, yet virtue is required (necessary) for our form of society, even if that society is unconscious of that need. The value of "democracy" (in the loose sense we usually give it) is that it does tie together freedom and stability--and virtue. The luxury of being able to be personally immoral yet count on a stable government is less possible in democracies in the long run: the fate of the people and the state are tied together. If they would have stability, they must have freedom, and they must use it virtuously. If freedom is not virtuous, it is not stable; but if stability is not free, it is not virtuous. All three are required, and all rise or fall together.

"Without Roots": The Question of Europe's True Identity in an Age of Cultural Crisis

2009-05-15T17:35:00.008-04:00

Europe . . . is on a collision course with its own history

Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam, written by then-Cardinal Josef Ratzinger and Marcello Pera, explores the origins of European culture in terms of its Catholic foundations; it does this with the objective of understanding the cultural and moral decline of the West, while at the same time proposing solutions for its rebirth. The book explains, step-by-step, how relativism has destroyed the West. One example of which can easily be seen, and which therefore is frequently cited in this book, is the West’s current relations with Islam, in both the political and cultural spheres. In an inane and dangerously backwards sense of public relations, the more the West is attacked by Islamic activists – be they attacks verbal, violent, or downright barbaric – the more the West feels the need to apologize for its past mistakes. This “self hatred” from which the West suffers results from the relativistic belief that one culture is neither better nor worse than another: merely different. Such an ideology ultimately becomes hypocritical and leads to self-destruction, for as Pera states in his letter to Ratzinger: “relativism, after teaching that all cultures and civilizations are equal, makes the contradictory insinuation that our culture and our civilization are worse than others.” As Ratzinger and Pera persuasively demonstrate, the intricate levels of civilization found complementarity when they were governed by the Truth inherent in the institution of the Catholic Church. Remove the Church, and culture has no direction. History caught a glimpse of this phenomena in the 1300’s, for when the seat of the papacy rested in Avignon, France, Rome descended into a cultural standstill. The same is happening now, except on a much broader scale, and with calculated deliberation. The battle waged by relativists to remove Catholicism from the culture – and more importantly, the willingness of Catholics to surrender to these attacks – has resulted in a Europe which is now suffering from terminal lethargy.

The Church is fundamental to the culture of Europe. The cultural decline which has resulted from Europeans' increasingly successful attempts of emancipating themselves from their Catholic roots has proven this. Once relativism took hold, once it became impossible to say that one thing is better than another, man became something that could be quantified, while ceasing to be something that could be valued. “Personhood” became an “empirical concept.” As a result of this breakdown, civilization lost its ability to behave responsibly, simply because there is no reason to be responsible towards something which has no value. The same arguments which claim that man will be free once he is rid of the imperialism of the Church and her morality are the same which have, in coming to their logical conclusion, made men valueless and expendable in the eyes of civilization. It is little wonder, then, that Europe has become “infected by a strange lack of desire for the future.”

The most unique character of this book is the fact that it shows two diverse and seemingly incompatible modes of thought – secularism and Catholicism – leading towards the same conclusion: that is, that Western civilization cannot continue to survive without the Catholic Church. Pera, a self-proclaimed agnostic and a secularist, has provided a natural law argument for the efficacy of the Church, not only asserting Her importance as a moral guide, but how indispensable She is as culturally stabilizing institution. He even goes so far as to challenge modern Catholics for their lack of courage and determination, asking: “Do they (Catholics) understand that what they are being called to defend is their identity?” Due to the unprecedented veracity of Pera’s words, Cardinal Ratzinger can only respond with agreement and elaboration. He speaks of the breakdown of a Europe that long ago had been defined by its cultural life and growth. The Church which had been the foundation for that culture is seen as something which is outdated, inaccessible, and irrelevant, and therefore feeble in its mission to communicate the Truth. The result of this breakdown is a West that has become “hollow, as if it were internally paralyzed by a failure of its circulatory system that is endangering its life, subjecting it to transplants that erase its identity.” However, as dreary as the future may seem, both Ratzinger and Pera believe that it is still possible to revive civilization, and they therefore propose the creation of a civil Christian religion; such a task would bridge the gap between secularists and Catholics by unifying them in a common end for the good, without compromising the integrity of the Church, and thereby giving “vital new energy to a dying antiquity.”

by A. Schneible

Disclaimer: this paper was submitted as an assignment basically at the same time I posted it here. I was just so eager to finally have something to contribute that I wanted to put it up right away. Therefore, if my Santa Croce professor does a google search and finds this: I didn't plagiarize, I promise!

Dr. Warren now Pro-Abortion!

2009-01-20T21:23:00.013-05:00

Proof: He prayed at Obama's inauguration!

Ok, that's a little weak on the proof-o-meter. In fact, it doesn't prove anything at all. No one on the pro-abortion side thinks that Dr. Rick Warren is now the slightest bit more pro-abortion, pro-gay, or pro-anything else he was against yesterday, just because he gave the invocation at President Obama's inauguration. And there's no reason they should.

And there's no reason we should, either. Which is why I think this letter to Dr. Warren misses the mark. And misunderstands the nature of scandal. I could be wrong, and I am very open to correction or at least interesting discussion on this point, but it seems to me that people tend to give a little too much weight to symbolic communication, but not enough either to actual communication, or to actual ... well, action. I don't think we can say that Rev. Warren is morally complicit in anything Obama will ever do just by his presence at Obama’s inauguration. And the asserted scandalous symbolic message that he somehow supports Obama in some way is easily averted by actual, non-symbolic communication of his own views where they diverge from Obama’s.

Scandal, as I understand it in the Catholic tradition, comes about when people weak in the faith are too attached to a person or are too dependent on that person for their faith (as children are toward their parents), and that person does something that seems to represent or suggest a position outside the faith (like eating meat sacrificed to idols, or committing a public sin, or publicly advocating a specific sinful action), and it is likely those people will not find out or understand the person's real reason for being there (assuming they haven't actually left the Faith). Because if there was a good reason and the weak learned of it, the danger to their faith is now gone, right?

But if someone’s faithful views are already known, you can’t then cry scandal just b/c he associates with the bad guys in public. The nature of politics is maintaining relationships with people who disagree with you, even if those relationships are public. And we are called to work in the world as a leaven, as long as we do not allow ourselves interiorly (our intentions, etc.) to be of the world.

The lapsed in Augustine’s day weren’t condemned because they were merely present at a ceremony, but because they broke down and actually performed a ceremonial action specifically construed to communicate only one thing: that in their hearts they were willing to give to a man the worship due to God alone. So unless you honestly think Warren has changed his views and is now willing to be silent when it counts, e.g., when some abortion law comes up for a vote, then you are not experiencing scandal. Rather, you have created your own angst not through weak faith, but misinformed faith. (This makes it a problem of formation, not of weakness).

The Poetics of Inauguration

2009-01-15T15:17:00.003-05:00

Here's an interesting combination of politics and art.

Elizabeth Alexander is about to become only the fourth inaugural poet in American history, so Jeremy Axelrod over at Culture11 has written an analysis of her work as well as of the three previous inaugural poets: Robert Frost in 1961, Maya Angelou in 1993, and Miller Williams in 1997.

Axelrod's article isn't a complete critique of the entirety of these poets' works. But it is a balanced look at their overall strengths and weaknesses as poets, in light of the very unique and, in some ways, conflicting challenges that accompany writing poetry for an inauguration.

Those challenges are greater than you might think. Even Robert Frost, whose subtlety and insights into the ambiguities of modern and especially American potential Axelrod illustrates in his article, yielded a rather amateur and bland poem for the occasion of Kennedy's inauguration. (Luckily he couldn't see to read it, and instead recited from memory a more intelligent and nuanced work.)

Axelrod describes what "a truly strong inaugural poem should be":

a work that reveals the obligation of the president to history as much as to the present and future; a poem, in other words, that is alive to the centuries of promise that weigh on a new president in a new year

But there is a tension between the inherent depth of poetic communication, demanding thoughtful contemplation, versus the pep-rally emotion of the inaugural victory party:

If poetry brings any aspect of life into keener focus, it is at a level too subtle, and often too dark, for mere oratory. To both celebrate Obama’s inauguration and give it a richer meaning, then, Alexander will have to tread warily between depth and shallow patriotic cheer.

Now, it really isn't a bad thing to celebrate at an inauguration, anymore than at a party convention. The mob emotion that is generated at such events is a great way to motivate troops that must be motivated. One must only hope that the ideology underlying the troops and their generals is correct. And an inaugural poem has the potential to remind euphoric attendees of the intellectual foundation of their movement -- i.e., it's the perfect opportunity to look at the *content* (if any) of catchphrases like "Change". :-)

Killing with Kindness: Your Best Weapon is Your Best Work

2009-01-14T14:03:00.000-05:00

Recently, I read an article about the subtle (or not) revival of the Hollywood Blacklist. For those who are not familiar with the Blacklist, a group of Hollywood actors, directors, etc., in the late 1940s/early 1950s were accused of holding Communist views and spreading those views via their movies. It seems that today's Hollywood elites have decided to employ those past Draconian practices. The new generation of acting and directing talents are being scrutinized for any signs of conservative principals.

As in most places, money is really the name of the game and Gary DeMar's answer is a simple yet effective one: create the best art possible and beat them at their own game. Think this is an obvious solution? Case in point: a friend recently related to me the following story. Well-known conservative organization hires a professional firm to update their marketing brochure. Long-time client complains that it is not "Catholic" enough ~ it is too "professional."

My apologies. Remind me -- when did Catholics identify themselves by their lack of professionalism? I understand perfectly that the past forty years have seen our liturgy become a playground for the artistically challenged and the liturgically insane. But that really is no excuse -- invincible ignorance and all that rot, what? So from whence came this idea that our best work is somehow "too much" and that things held together with duct tape and spit are somehow to be shown proudly as uniquely ours, I do not know. But it is an idea that must be destroyed and true beauty and professionalism put back in its place.

DeMar quotes Gary Susman's article in Entertainment Weekly:

...in entertainment, people want escapism, not spinach or propaganda. It's why (as conservatives note) few went to see last year's group of movies critical of the War on Terror (In the Valley of Elah, Rendition, Lions for Lambs, etc.) or this year's W., but it's also why few went to see American Carol, either. (It's not a liberal conspiracy that both Carol and W. are being roundly ignored in favor of talking chihuahuas.) Explicitly partisan movies, left or right, don't seem to do as well as those that give both sides a voice or whose ideology takes a backseat to plot and character development.

As a writer, this goes without saying. But for our our more provincial friends, not so much. Another case in point: Fireproof. To be honest, I did not go to see this movie. But several friends did. Almost every single one admitted that it was no great work of cinematic art. But they felt that it should not matter because it had a good message. And since this seems to be the view that most Catholics (and I assume other Christians and conservatives) take, it must be addressed.

I am sorry. I simply will not waste money (especially nowadays) on a movie that may have a good message but terrible acting and directing or producing. Whatever one may think about his politics or even his religion, Mel Gibson's Passion was brilliant on all accounts: good message, superb acting, delightful direction and production. For some of my friends, it was a "not fair" that Fireproof did not get the credit and the exposure it deserved.

This is simply ridiculous. Holding something to be true and good does not mean that one can expect it to be applauded and accepted by everyone. For those who want to split theological hairs, consider that even Jesus Christ did not just state the truth of who He was with crayons and duct tape. He told stories: riveting stories. They're called parables.

Regardless of what one's religious or political affiliations may be, good art is good art. And good art is one of the ways we have left to reach a hardened post-modern heart. It is our baptismal duty to do so.

So get out there and create great art.

Western views on Islamic violence

2009-01-06T17:52:00.000-05:00

Happy New Year, everybody!

This article was on cnn.com a few days ago. It's a terribly tragic story, but I think really significant that this type of story is getting front page coverage.

First, it shows a young terrorist-in-training getting untrained.

When I think of the West's reaction to terrorism, I usually think of a few main common threads. A political thread focuses on fighting and/or preventing terror tactics. This is the basic 9/11-never-again reaction, and encompasses people of both or neither of the next two.

A second thread found among Christians talks about the inherent violence of Islam, and I'm not sure what comes after that, except maybe something about fighting their tactics as in Camp A - a strategy which may or may not be conflated with a half tongue-in-cheek reference to the Crusades.

(A third camp exists among modern agnostics and sees all religions as inherently violent, to the point of being surprised to meet normal nonviolent people who are devoutly religious. Their inability to make distinctions about or even talk about religion seriously is a handicap, since most of the earth's population does take seriously the human inclination toward religion. This explains a large chunk of failures in US foreign and especially public diplomacy.)

Neither of the first two common ways of speaking says much about fighting the recruitment of the great cultural threat that is (hm, what to call it exactly...) violent Islamism.

There are efforts being undertaken to counteract the main patterns of terrorist recruitment of young, idle Muslim teens full of passion and promise but also resentment and frustration and deprived of a decent liberal education (in the classical sense of "liberating"); but these efforts are not enough, and for some reason the coverage of them is even less.

The CNN article was interesting secondly because it mentions an organized program of undoing terrorist brainwashing being conducted by nonviolent Muslims. Now, many of you conservatives are convinced that Islam will always be violent by nature. This may be true on some levels, but here are some not-fully developed thoughts on whether Christians should even care about that internal Muslim debate:

1. If you are convinced of the truth of Christianity and the divine mission of Christ, or even the divine selection of Israel, then you must believe that all other religions are of merely human origin. At least, this is the traditional claim of Christianity--that it was in fact founded by God Himself. So if less and less Muslims view the violent passages of the Quran literally, isn't this a good thing, regardless of whether WE think it is a less pure form of Islam? Seriously, if Islam is only a human institution, as Christians regard it, then the humans that hold it have as much authority to say what is its most essential or best or purest form. Arguably, they have more authority than we do.

2. Christianity traditionally is not a completely pacifist religion, which is to say it has a limited place for violence. It has a theory of just war that is more nuanced than just saying "War is always wrong." There are strong currents of support for the theoretical morality of capital punishment (abstracted from the practical difficulties of assuring guilt, or the call for mercy, which is at the same time essential to and higher than the basic concept of justice). There is certainly a strong appreciation for the necessity for social order and a state with the power to police wrongdoing.

Moreover, when it comes to abstract things like occasions of sin and vice, the Christian tradition is just full of violent and military analogies. We are encouraged to make appropriate distinctions like "hating the sin, not the sinner." (I've always thought C.S. Lewis' Perelandra presented the best concrete example of righteous hatred legitimately acted upon.) We are counseled to root out without mercy anything that is keeping us from holiness and perfection - even our own hand, if necessary.

This is a widely acknowledged spiritual principle: Just look at Jacob wrestling with the angel and earning the name Israel ("struggles with God"); St. Paul exhorting us to "fight the good fight"; and the strong tradition in Islam that remembers that "Islam" is related to salam, "peace," and sees jihad ("struggle") as primarily a spiritual one.

So what, you ask? Well, first of all violence on the spiritual level is still violence, since it indicates the existence of evil (something that deserves our hatred and our struggles against it). And spiritual realities very rarely avoid having effects or manifestations in the physical world. So while we can't eradicate the concepts of injustice or the slaughter of innocents, we can and sometimes are obligated to fight instances of them that we see. And if spiritual realities are considered higher or greater, spiritual evils are more evil than physical evils, which suggests a way to justify things like (a) sacrifice for something greater than oneself and (b) using proportionate physical violence to counter a force that seeks to cause great(er) physical or spiritual evil.

Practically speaking, then, I suggest that saying that Islam is a violent religion is at best unhelpful, and at most meaningless, especially if it comes someone who believes Islam does not originate from the one immutable God. For if it is truly a human institution, it by nature can change, and we can only pray for Muslims that their understanding of their religion will change for the better, with God's help. More useful is to say that person or group X is fighting the wrong fight, not to criticize that they are willing to fight for something at all. Thus I think that other religions are in a better position to dialogue with Islam than areligious western modernism.

3. Of course, if Islam is not merely a human phenomenon, then certain things follow from that, too, mostly to do with the fact that its truest form wouldn't contradict other things that God has authored, like human nature and especialy human reason. This is probably the essence of Pope Benedict's controversial 1996 speech in Regensburg: That any religion that is actually good for humans must be above all reasonable in the sense of founded on reason. (Not in the social sense of "Oh, be reasonable" which half the time just means "Don't rock the boat". Benedict obviously wasn't afraid to rock the boat.) Benedict wants us, but mostly Muslims, to look at Islam in terms of how it can respect, improve, and raise up human nature and human reason. The primary goal of this need not be to induce Muslims to reject Islam so much as to reject strains of it that may be deemed unreasonable. This is a good strategy, and for all the protests he received from the Muslim world, it is the nonviolent, rational Muslims that continue to dialogue with him, since they share more common ground: not just religious ground like honoring Abraham as spiritual father, but even more basic, human ground. If Islam is seen and practiced in a way that truly makes one a better person, we cannot be afraid to praise and support that.

Still culturing...

2008-12-30T16:33:00.001-05:00

School is on break, but I for one am still writing papers. Still that doesn't mean this blog has been inactive. Take a look at the interesting conversation going on in the comments section of the previous post.

Topics include:

Do institutions or networks have more influence on culture today? What is the role of cultural elites, and should we try to be one of them?

Does a sociology of philosophies work the same for a sociology of culture in general?

How does grace work in the making/changing of culture? What should those who believe in grace do differently?

What is the role of a strategy in culture making/changing? What does the possibility of grace mean for strategizing?

How Culture is Remade: A Review of a Review

2008-11-09T00:07:00.001-05:00

I thought I'd put up some thoughts on culture by way of a review I just read of Andy Crouch's book Culture-Making: Recovering Our Creative Calling. The review is by John Seel, writing for the journal of The Trinity Forum, a website I haven't finished exploring but which looks interesting and relevant.

Let's start with a quote I like from Crouch's book:

If we want to transform culture, what we actually have to do is to get into the midst of the human cultural project and create some new cultural goods that reshape the way people imagine and experience their world.

Seel agrees with this, but uses it to introduce a running criticism of the book, which is that Crouch seems to overemphasize the material aspect of culture. (He also notes that this is primarily a problem with the book alone, not with Crouch's thought as a whole.) He quotes Ken Myers' definition that "Culture is the cultivation of created nature" to point to the immaterial nature of culture, and that items that have become cultural artifacts (everything from iPods to specialty lattes) have a certain meaning even without, well, meaning to. The responsibility of those who create such artifacts, as well as of anyone who wishes to influence culture, is to understand the cultural background and meaning of each cultural "thing".

Seel spends a lot of time making up for Crouch's overemphasis on the "thingness" of cultural artifacts. So to make up for Seel's own emphasis, I'll balance the two by saying that those who wish to remake culture must be experts at both: at understanding the deeper significance of cultural things, and at making really good things.

For example: It's one thing to wish to inject a sense of respect for a Higher Power in, say, the American poetry scene; it's quite another to write a really good poem, as a poem (not just in content). You may go so far as to start your own poetry journal where every poem is about the baby Jesus or the life of St. Jadwiga, but to be good culturally (again we're not talking about content) is that it displays works that actually work as poems. And given the state of our culture, it may not be the time to dedicate the next edition of your journal to saints of medieval European royal families. We might start out to better effect with one brilliant, worldview-changing poem that takes place on the R-train in Brooklyn.*

Having made up for Seel's overemphasis, I am now free to say I like formulations like the following, on the necessity to understand the meaning of cultural items:

cultural artifacts ... require discernment both in their making and using. If we are to avoid the worldliness of being “squeezed into the world’s mold” (Romans 12:2), then we must understand its contemporary contours and develop disciplines of cognitive and embodied resistance.

The Cultural Elites

Seel's sharpest disagreement with Crouch concerns the channels throug which cultural influence occurs. In short, Crouch sees culture influenced from the bottom up, and Seel from the top down. Crouch's view, as Seel describes it, is that we simply create new items of culture, but cannot dictate how they will be accepted. The missing element that Seel supplies is that there are factors that do influence how cultural contributions will be accepted, and these factors can be manipulated.

"The actor on the stage of cultural change is institutions, not individuals," according to Randall Collins as saying. (See, conservatives are learning from Gramsci!) Seel agrees with this idea, calling those running such institutions the cultural elites:

If this is the case, then cultural change does not happen according to the rules of market exchange, as Andy [Crouch] suggests, but on the basis of institutional access. Thus, cultural change does not happen from the bottom-up via mass markets, but top-down via gatekeeping elites. The tactical implications are enormous. For if a particular social group is not a part of the cultural gatekeeping conversation, then they are not a part of the conversation that shapes culture.

I think Seel is mostly right, even if he runs a slight risk of overemphasis again here. In a free market, as in a free society, there is free will even though there are also myriad subtle influencing factors upon the exercise of that free will. (Collectively called "propaganda" in society; "advertising" in the market.)

A theory of culture must acknowledge the role of cultural elites, as Seel says (indeed, if you hope to change culture, becoming a cultural elite yourself is one great way to do it). But it need not minimize the role of market-like patterns of cultural exchange that Crouch emphasizes. If you make a good product (Crouch) and advertize it well (Seel), you are taking one solid step toward redefining people's worldview, and therefore culture.

Becoming an Influencer of Culture

Seel's last point is about scale: Influence on a small scale is just as legitimate for its scope, and works the same way, as influence on a large scale. "In fact, it is only at the local level or at the smaller scale that a person can explore his or her abilities and be effectively apprenticed in becoming a winsome contributor to culture making. It is faithfulness in small places and little things that equips one to be faithful in bigger arenas and larger things."

This is true. And very well-known among conservatives. Too well known, perhaps. Considering Seel's points about the need to be among the elite in order to influence culture, it is surprising he does not seek to emphasize the stepping-stone nature of the small scale. In my experience, conservatives are too willing to put in a little local effort and "leave it in God's hands". But I don't see a lot of national coordination for cultural influence; most national-level efforts are for "process" struggles like elections, despite the fact that who people vote for are only symptoms of their worldview -- a worldview which could be changed more directly and effectively by coordinated efforts to influence culture and change hearts and minds. As another contributor to the Trinity Forum writes: "the most important need is not on Pennsylvania Avenue but in the hearts and minds of the governed. "

* This is also why I was very underimpressed by the movie Thérèse as a cultural artifact. Why should Catholic movies have to rely for success on desperate campaigns to mobilize Catholic movie-goers? Why can't they earn success from simply being good movies? I think Passion of the Christ was successful for this reason: it was good cinema, which tends to include a deep sense of challenge to one's perception of reality. (This makes a great potential venue for remaking culture: people expect good cinema to be challenging. Yes, there will always be successful mindless movies, but even many who enjoy these also appreciate the respect to their intellects shown by movies like The Matrix and Dark Knight.)

Antonio Gramsci and the Reinfiltration of Culture

2008-11-07T17:18:00.000-05:00

Antonio Gramsci was a Marxist with a twist. His twist--a brilliant insight, actually--is something conservatives should be studying since it was the ideological basis for the wildly successful cultural revolution that American society underwent in the 1960s.

You can get the details of Gramsci's life here if you like. Being a Marxist meant several things: Economically, it meant he was a communist, hoping for a utopia where all material needs were met by holding all means of production in common (no private property). Being a Marxist also meant Gramsci was implicitly a materialist, meaning that empirical matter was the only reality (i.e., no afterlife). This makes the quest for an earthly utopia the highest good, one that justifies all means undertaken to attain it. (Compare the frightening devotion of al-Qaeda, an aspect that liberals fear without distinction in all persons of religion.)

Gramsci's insight was characteristic of Western Marxism's focus on political and cultural issues: namely, that the worldwide economic Revolution had not taken hold in the West because of the strength there of non-economic ideologies. Some of the non-economic ideologies that resisted communism were:

1. Theism, including a belief in an afterlife where we are judged;

2. A morality that holds immaterial goods higher than material ones -- that the good of giving, for example, is more beneficial to man than the acquisition of material goods.

3. A view of human dignity that respected individuals enough to leave them in charge of the material goods they produced, even while calling them to better themselves by the act of giving to their fellow man.

Ask yourself how prevalent these are in our society today, or how comfortable you would feel talking about them out loud, and you will see the success of the cultural revolution. Antonio Gramsci's insightful twist on Marxism was that these ideologies were in fact hindering communism by being so entrenched. He called this "cultural hegemony."

So Gramsci came up with a plan.

Quite simply, the plan was that in order to prepare Western society for the economic revolution of communism, communists needed first to focus on reversing these important, indeed characteristic Western concepts. In other words, communists needed to undermine the ideological basis for Western morality, and really for Western Civilization. In this way Gramsci is the true father of the cultural revolution in the West, because it was Gramsci that called for a conscious, deliberate, "infiltration" of the institutions of civil society (as opposed to political society) that strengthen, promote, and pass on (the meaning of the word tradition) these important Western ideals. We know it worked: the educational system has been so masterfully taken over, and those vital Western ideals are therefore not being passed on. Even more, the literature and agenda of the National Education Adminstration make it the strongest, most obvious modern-day standard-bearer of Gramscian ideology. The cultural and moral achievements of Western civilization have been not refuted, but replaced nonetheless.

What should conservatives take from the study of Gramsci? Two things, at least:

1) It means we must beware of focusing too much on process, to the neglect of the personal. Gramsci drew a clear distinction between political society and civil society, and his liberal ideological heirs have understood and assimilated its significance far better than conservatives. To wit: the anti-abortion movement's number one goal is one of (political) process -- overturning Roe v. Wade -- while things like presidential election losses are counted the biggest setbacks. Meanwhile liberals are famous for being "community organizers" and address their propaganda more successfully to the average working guy--Joe the Plumber notwithstanding. (I use the term propaganda impartially, since our side needs to use propaganda better: more on this in another post.)

If there is one thing I took with me from my years in the Legion of Mary, and keep to this day, it is an appreciation for personal contact. We cannot simply reason our way to a society that sees the evils of things like abortion, since it is not mainly reason that has led people astray; the rationalization comes after the decision has already been made in most cases. Nor can we have any hope of ultimate victory at the level of president, congress, supreme court, or anything else, as long as the society that keeps electing them (or those who appoint them) continues on the path it is on.

McCain in his concession speech was right: the American people did speak clearly in the 2008 election. Which means the next step isn't just to try and win another election, but to educate and convince the people. This is a difficult challenge, to be sure, but it is exactly the one that Gramsci's followers faced, which leads me to the second thing conservatives should learn from Gramsci.

2) We must plan to infiltrate the institutions of civil society that now maintain "cultural hegemony" in favor of the Left. As Gramsci's people did before them, we should try to encourage conservatives in large numbers that if they are serious about fighting the culture war, they should keep their heads down and their mouths shut until they are actually in charge of schools, newspapers, film companies. And not just versions of these things that barely, technically count, but ones in the mainstream.

This is an ambitious plan, and I don't know if it will ever happen, mainly because the various groups of conservatives are so frustratingly difficult to unite (look at how many anti-abortion and pro-life groups there are, all following their own strategies with no coordination with the others--what a waste of resources!) In fact it has been tried in part in the past, but failed usually because it was executed in a crude, obvious, or harsh manner. But the more we are willing to adopt strategies that work, in ways that are tailored to a truly understood target audience, the more we will truly do justice to the causes we say we wish to fight for.

Catholics of the World Unite!

2008-04-05T14:38:00.000-04:00

No, this is not going go be a blog promoting liberation theology, or holding hands at Mass, or increased education in Latin. This blog is for you, my fellow Catholics who have a desire to do the right thing, and are vaguely aware of some sort of culture war. Again, No! I don't mean between East and West, or between Christianity and Islam, I mean within our culture. You who see how our country and even our Church has changed over the past decades and are outraged--OUTRAGED!--at ... well, you know, them. The "them" that's opposed to "us". And you want to spread the Truth.

I feel the same way, but I also feel something else. I feel frustration at you--and myself--for being so naive about how this type of thing works. We tend to think that the truth has an inherent magical power of attraction and that if it were only heard, people would see reason. My question is: has that worked?? For $1,000,000, my final answer is: No.

Our American government is an experiment to see whether a free society is a better forum for people to discover truth than authoritarianism. Argument by authority, even if the authority is trustworthy, is still the weakest form of knowledge--we must know by exploring issues through vigorous, honest debate. As Americans we just know this somehow.

But just because we come to truth by open debate doesn't mean there are not movements and currents under the surface that affect, manipulate, even set the agenda for public discussion. As Americans we don't like to think that such "underhanded" things such as propaganda and psychological warfare should effect the shining white ideal of truthful debate -- and because we don't like to think about it, we allow ourselves to be completely blind to the workings of those who very much like to think about and use such methods.

Some readers may be anecdotally aware of the influence of such people as Margaret Sanger, Antonio Gramsci, and other leftist thinkers on society. My plan for this blog space is to document such influences: to look more systematically at the thought of people who are largely influential but just as largely unknown, to look carefully at the official literature of influential groups in society such as the NEA and Planned Parenthood, and to trace substantial connections between the two.

Why should we do this? How specifically can this benefit faithful Catholics, especially those in positions relating to communications, catechesis, education, or any other Catholic that ever has occasion to communicate with another member of our American society? Two reasons. First: Freedom of Choice! The best and easiest tactic of counterpropaganda is simply to draw attention to propaganda as such. Perspective on why someone says something can turn potential influence on its head, and allows the target audience to make a more fully informed decision.

Second reason: To learn from them. These influences that we deem so insidious -- they're insidious because of the nature of the ideas (whether they be atheist, socialist, morally relativist, etc.). They are not insidious because of the methods used to promulgate them.

I'm not talking about killing people and forcing people to pretend outwardly that they agree with the Party Line. I'm talking about soft power, deliberate strategies designed to influence ideas, feelings, attitudes, social memory, even commercial preferences. Remember that vague sense of outrage you said you shared with me several paragraphs ago? That itself is proof that these people's methods have worked.

That means we need to use them.

Our devotion to truth asks nothing less of us. If we are committed to serving Truth, it means we place our whole selves in its service: including our God-given reason and ability to strategize and out-think the opposing generals in this war of ideas. Christ Himself commanded this: it is not enough to be innocent as doves, we must also be cunning as serpents.