Of course, one difficulty as with many liberal suggestions, is that it asks religious people to be two people instead of one - something Tony Blair has recently said himself. Even as PM, he had to maintain a secret double life as a Christian believer, pretending that he made decisions without reference to his beliefs. But, more than this: is the ironic stance beloved of Rorty really feasible in a time of crisis when something more is required?
Actually, the rule of Christ ought to give the Christian just the sense of irony about human systems of rule that Rorty wants - with all the pragmatic benefits (if we must stoop to his level). Cambridge historian Herbert Butterfield, writing in the aftermath of WWII, wrote this remarkable conclusion to his book Christianity and History:
In these days ... when people are so much the prisoners of systems - especially of those general ideas which mark the spirit of the age - it is not always realised that beleif in God gives us great elasticity of mind, rescuing us from too great subservience to intermediate principles, whether these are related to nationality or ideology or science. It even enables us to leave more play in our minds for the things that nature or history may still have to reveal to us in the near future. Similarly, Christianity is not tied to regimes - not compelled to regard the existing order as the very end of life and the embodiment of all our values. Christians have too often tried to put the brake on things in the past, bu at the critical turning-points in history they have les reason that others to be afraid that a new kind of society or civilisation will leave them with nothing to live for. ..There are times when we can never meet the future with sufficient elasticity of mind, especially if we are locked in the contemnporary systems of thougt. We can do worse than remember a principle which both gives us a firm Rock and leaves us the maximum elasticity for our minds: the principle: Hold to Christ, and for the rest be totally uncommitted.
This 'elasticity of mind': I think this is superior to Rorty's irony, and founded on something other than merely what apparently 'works'.
7 comments:
The Butterfield quote is excellent, but I'm afraid it hasn't redeemed the word "elasticity" for me: it always makes me think of Mr John Wither, Deputy Director of the N.I.C.E. (I take it you've read That Hideous Strength?)
Ah, That Hideous Strength.
The prophet Lewis being dead yet speaketh.
Returning to Rorty, his point suffers from the inevitable self-contradiction of relativism: it is an absolutism even whilst it asks for the rejection of absolutes. Ironism is itself an ideology. Being ironic about ironism reopens the possibility of holding fast to our ideological commitments and metaphysical beliefs, so we're back where we started.
Such a process might have a value, helping us to discard the unworthy and to deepen our grasp of the worthy. Cf. Eliot, "To arrive where we started and know the place for rthe first time."
Unfortunately for Rorty this might conceivably make us more formidable opponents/critics of liberal political order.
At bottom, Rorty's problem is not that he is ironic, but that he is not ironic enough.
Love the Butterfield quote! Now to work out how to express it to teenagers!
Tim B
"Richard Rorty wants we citizens to be 'ironists'"
No he doesn't. He wants *us citizens* to be ironists.
Subject, verb, object?
What's wrong with the plain old accusative "wants us citizens"? Nothing, I tell you. But people do this all the time and it *really* gets on my nerves, especially when it's done by people who ought to know better (people who have supposedly studied English at university). It's an embarrassment when native English speakers make such fundamental errors. In an environment where several hundred million people are speaking English as a foreign language (and thereby contributing to its destruction), the least we native speakers could do for its upkeep is to apply some basic grammatical concepts such as subject, verb and object. Is this too much to ask? I'm not on some crusade to eliminate prepositions from the end of sentences or to banish all split infinitives to eternal condemnation. Rather, all I ask is that people use prepositions such as I and me, we and us, correctly.
The most common instance of this raping of the English language I hear is "for (or to) you and I". Of course it should be for/to you and *me*. No same person would (unless writing poetry and forcing a rhyme) ever say "for I " or "to I". So what makes it different when we throw a "you and" into the mix? Well gramatically speaking nothing important has changed. They are both still objects rather than subjects. I suspect it's a case of "overcorrection" that causes people to make such mistakes. In primary school we were (correctly) taught not to say "Johnny and me did X". But people then don't realise that this is because "Johnny and me" is the subject and not the object. As soon as "Johnny and me" becomes the object then it, and not "Johnny and I", is correct. Now that's a lesson not just for Johnny and me, but for all of us as well.
Thankyou. I DID indeed study English at University. It was however a colonial university, so that might explain my lapse for which I humbly repent.
It was interestingly a case of over-correction - I at first wrote 'us', then corrected it by ear. My ear is usually a trustworthy guide. Not this time!
While I didn't study English, I did go to a colonial university. This was never meant as a mother country versus the colonies thing. Plenty of poms make the same kind of mistake.
Sorry if I sounded overly harsh in my criticism. This wasn't meant as a personal attack on you. It's an all too common error and your blog entry gave me the chance to speak my mind. But sometimes you need to put things bluntly so that the necessary changes will be made. If one is too weak in one's criticism the actual point can be lost among all the padding.
Oh sure. I was entirely tongue in cheek about the colonies thing.
Be as harsh as you like. Your point is well made. However, anonymity does exacerbate the harshness of the tone somewhat.
Post a Comment