John Carroll, professor of sociology at La Trobe University, Melbourne, is not afraid of big ideas. His 2004 book The Wreck of Human Culture – a substantial reworking of a 1993 effort – is a passionate, daring and sustained attack on the bloodlines of what we call “the West.” He calls his book “a spiritual history of the West.” He writes with a refreshing polemical zeal and with none of the hedging and over-qualifying so characteristic of academic prose.
Carroll’s claim is that “humanism” – by which he means the intellectual and cultural movement originating in the Renaissance – has had its deficiencies exposed in the latter-day collapse of western culture. Most particularly, the humanist belief in the supremacy of the human free will as alternative to obedience to God has been revealed as self-defeating – not least by the devastating symbolism of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The strategy Carroll employs for demonstrating this thesis is a selectively genealogical one. In a deliberate snub of postmodern orthodoxy, he examines some of the finest works of high culture in the humanist half-millennium: Hamlet, Holbein’s The Ambassadors, Rembrandt and Poussin, Mozart and Kant, Kierkegaard and Nietzche, the novels of Henry James and the films of John Ford. It is an idiosyncratic choice and an unorthodox method, which Carroll justifies because these exceptional masterpieces have “tapped the deepest truths of their time” (p.9). His interaction with these works is stimulating and masterful and makes The Wreck of Human Culture a pleasure to read.
Crucial to the history Carroll traces is the famous sixteenth century debate over the freedom of the human will between the doyen of European humanism, Erasmus of Rotterdam and the German reformer Martin Luther. Carroll bravely reads Luther as more anti-humanist than anti-Roman Catholic. The irenic Erasmus was a reasonable man. If there is no human free-will, he argues, why should the wicked reform? But Luther’s teaching of justification by faith alone meant a complete rejection of this reliance on human will and reason. For Luther, the human being is a slave to sin and sentenced to death; and must come, empty-handed, to the cross of the crucified Christ. Mere morality was a hopeless absurdity. The heart of the Protestant reformation, rooted in the writings of Paul, is an acknowledgement of the helplessness of the human as a result of sin and death and a need for absolute dependence on God. Humanism, with its alternative diagnosis of the basic goodness of human beings and their freedom to be moral, leads inevitably to the rejection of God. There are some mealy-mouthed versions of Christianity that espouse this kind of thinking, even today: but the calamities of history must be held up against them as evidence. Man has proved a very poor god; and ultimately, death still undoes him.
Luther’s insight is as crucial today as it ever was. What Protestant - in other words, Biblical - Christianity offers is a radically different diagnosis of the human condition. The humanist vision has been played out in full and now offers no comfort to the human soul. Carroll offers his work as a contribution to the funeral of humanism (p.268), with a warning for us not to give it another run.
But what does he offer as an alternative? Carroll enjoins the West to start again, to reach back into the past and recapture that right “enthusiasm for man and his works that the Renaissance attempted to enshrine” (p.266). He means by this a simple delight in place of the infatuation with the human that has bought us so badly undone. Carroll writes: “The culture of the West will not be renewed until the moment it kills Luther’s monster [ie death], and once again achieves a death of death” (p.267). For Carroll, it is in the art of Poussin that a particular alternative is indicated. Though the Frenchman Poussin was a Roman Catholic, Carroll claims that in his pictures he was able to represent Luther’s great ideas. He, too, sees that “darkness where the light of neither law nor reason shines” (p.70). He, too, sees the necessity for life and hope to come from outside sources and to be recognised as gifts. Yet he differs from Luther, writes Carroll, in that he appeals to a radically different divinity – “the sacred breath moving through the mythos” (p.71).
13 comments:
Michael I have the 1993 book but I've never managed to finish it: either my allergy to polemic has kept getting in the way, or I've just always tried to read it at the wrong time. But the argument was certainly in touch with something. Do you think I should give it one last go, or skip to the 2004? Re Poussin, I'm no art critic ... stuck at the "I know what I like" level, I'm afraid. Speaking of which, Robert Hughes was on the year's final Enough Rope here last night, and Denton let him walk away with it pretty much on his own terms: disappointing.
The distinction between delight and infatuation is a nice one (in both senses of the word).
I heard someone say recently that at the time of the Reformation, the greatest long-term danger to the Roman Church was the Italian humanists with their secularist tendencies, rather than the German reformers. It seems to have some reason.
ah. That is disappointing from Denton, because Hughes like Greer is a curmudgeonly expat needing a good kick up the rear!
I couldn't compare 1993 and 2004: I thoroughy enjoyed 2004, but I do LIKE polemic!
Sounds like Carroll is not quite so different from the po mo set as he would like. "The sacred breath moving through the mythos?" Is it better to believe in something other than humanity as opposed to nothing at all or is it a matter of the truth being much bigger than any one discourse can apprehend?
cyberpastor could you unpack your last sentence for me? I'm missing the connection with Carroll having common ground with postmodernism (not the first way I would have described him).
Michael I suppose one's tolerance or enjoyment of curmudgeonliness is a matter of taste, as with polemic. My problem with Greer is not so much the grouchiness but the sheer unrepentant unreasonableness she's capable of when making political points. That's not something I'd charge Hughes with, but he does need to be called on bullshit from time to time. That's supposed to be what Enough Rope is about, but Denton was MIA in this respect on Monday.
Well most venerable Yabbers without having actually read the book Carroll's appeal to "sacred breath moving through the mythos" reminds me of Huxley's attitude toward religion on the one hand and the consequences of Derrida's negative onto-theology on the other. At the risk of posing an either/or, we have the notion that it is good to believe in something supernatural albeit ambiguously mystical and "there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Thanks for the review Michael. I read Carroll's book a few years and found it a really refreshing style-wise, with some challenging content. It is not without it's limits - Luther or not, Luther's gospel is spot on!
It's time I tried to read Carroll again, I think, and that's probably better than discussing him further.
But as for any limitations of his position: I am open to people who have a swingeing critique, but only the sketch of an alternative programme to offer. The only folk I see who really do have an answer to everything are cultists and university Trotskyites. So if one is going to have a reasonable discussion at all, one must allow for a point where the argument goes vague or becomes "..."
I'm likewise inclined to be relaxed about him not ending up with the Nicene Creed, on the basis of his enquiry. Retreating from infatuation to delight, and acknowledging dependence on outside sources, are pretty big steps and I think we agree with them, even if we want to say more. And don't we anyway believe that one needs revelation to get there?
Cultists and university Trotskyites!
My dear Yabbers you should get out more :)
Well, there is one point worth discussing (which doesn't need a re-reading of the book): the Erasmus vs Luther debate and its ongoing relevance. The optimistic/pelagian view of the human condition, which has the virtue of requiring us to act responsibily and assuming we can, is part of the moral discourse of our day, and yet, if Carroll be right, that view itself has proved disastrous for the west.
Michael here I agree with you, that this one is worth discussing; and with you and Carroll, that fundamental optimism about the human condition has been a menace.
So in the interests of pushing for some disagreement, let me use this example to press my earlier point about tolerance for fellow-travelling. People other than paid-up Christians believe that you can meaningfully say there's something wrong with human nature: it's a conservative position rather than being a specifically Christian one. The fact that there are people who don't agree with 100% of the other things I think, who nonetheless agree on this, helps give me confidence in the position.
(cyberpastor you will appreciate this example: no-one would call Thomas Nagel sympathetic to any religion, but I'd agree 100% with his criticisms of materialist claims about the AI project and the mind-body problem generally. It's reassuring that someone cleverer than me, and not sharing the same commitments, rejects some things that I also wish to deny.)
So there's at least this value in counting the glass as half-full, I think.
As to needing to get out more, I don't deny it. I guess a more contemporary reference would have been to blogosphere zealots or to blowhards on cable. But I've never seen the appeal of cable TV current affairs, and this correspondence is pretty much my first experiment in interacting with blogs. In one sense the reference to the Trots is a product of getting out more: in the last year I've been walking into Sydney Uni from Redfern daily, something I haven't done for an extended period in over fifteen years. The posters are still everywhere. The external phenomena have changed in that time, but the conclusions they adduce are still exactly the same.
It's all going to be OK though isn't it? Just last night on BBC1 the 10:00 news decided to extol the virtues of our rosy future according to "scientists." The same old live longer, be smarter, persons on Mars clap-trap was trundled out and this despite a feature on global warming!
The indomitable human Enlightenment spirit is certainly seeming all the more havel havellim.
Dr Brooze you are right Nagel and chaps like him are a blessing and perhaps have a good deal still to teach theologians.
As for getting out more, please allow me to accompany from Redfern to the Uni on the first available opportunity. I could certainly do with the education!
OK then that's a deal.
My feelings about pronouncements by "scientists" are mixed. Certain scientists do have a certain kind of authority, and it's good that it be acknowledged. But deference seems to be shown, or witheld, in all the wrong places.
Mary Midgley is interesting on this question: for example the way it is rational to criticise certain developments as unnatural, protestations about such language to the contrary. The point is that the criticism needs to be unpacked. Feeding herbivores offal, and ending up with mad cow disease, is a classic example.
Other criticisms of hubris --- such as Carroll-like indictments of humanism --- are maybe resisted for a similar reason, i.e. that it's easy for the criticism to be made in a vulgar way. But a reasonable version of the criticism may still exist ...
Post a Comment