Maybe it's because I'm American and not British (and thus don't know the arugments happening in British culture) but the lack of a single quote, citation or hyperlink leads me to believer there might be some serious straw manning going on in this Mark Ravenhill column. There's also some rather dishonest elliding of seveal arguments that makes it seem like agnosticism means something it doesn't. Here's the graph where the arugment is laid out:
Christianity is a myth. But it's a myth that has helped us - and continues to
help us - ask searching moral and philosophical questions. Ours is an age in
which a lack of belief, at least in secular Europe, is prized. Before, having
one overarching belief was central to life, guiding our choices. But now we're
all supposed to travel light, be supple, so that we can swap jobs, partners or
political allegiances at a moment's notice. But this perpetual state of
agnosticism, this lack of commitment, must surely be corrosive. Those who are
able to locate, and to explore intelligently, a system of belief, be that
religious or political, are surely making a valuable contribution to our times.
We may not share their beliefs, but we should treasure them.
Disregarding the sentiment of the first sentence (which is sort-of accurate maybe about some people) the conflation of "agnosticism" with the idea of "lack of commitment" is inaccurate. Agnosticism- literally the idea that the truth is not knowable- is a philosophic way of living built around the idea of asking searching moral and philosophical questions. Agnosticism is built around quesitoning everything, whereas Christianity- when it does question- questions in very specific ways that largely revolve around the incompatibility of Jesus' teachings with leading a regular life in today's society.
This conflation leads to the contention that it is somehow secularism that is to blame for people feeling compelled to "swap jobs, partners of political allegiences at a moment's notice," is a lazy Christianist talking point. It returns us to the old religious trope that without religion (and specifically Christianity, Judaism apparently isn't worth talking about for Ravenhill), life has no meaning. The secularist answers this by saying without the oppresive strictures of meaning imposed by giant multinational institutions, people are free to create meaning themselves, and by keeping religion out of public and governmental institutions, we allow people to be free to choose their own paths, including religious ones. I would also note that as someone who isn't religious, I doubt Ravenhill actually believes his lack of commitment line, it's just a cheap shot to get in at those who might disagree with him to try to minimize the validity of their viewpoint.
I agree with Ravenhill's basic point that the Bible is an important work of literature (I studied the Bible as ur-text in my very-secular High School) and that the religious influence on great works of art is undeniable. Also, I agree with him when he talks about the frequently positive impacts churches are still having on the arts in Britain.
To make this argument, however, Ravenhill resorts to more strawmanning:
...we like to tell ourselves that their creators were covert humanists, who
wanted to make art and had no choice other than to make it within the confines
of a church that held all the power and money.
This idea that all artists are essentially humanists is a comforting myth
for an agnostic age. There is little evidence to support it. It is, if you like,
the agnostic's delusion - because the very opposite is true. The greatest
artists, from Matthias Grünewald in the 15th century to Benjamin Britten in the
20th, had a genuine Christian faith: complicated, questioning, agonised at
times, as any intelligent faith should be, but a very real faith all the
same.
What you mean we, Kemosabe? Who is making these ahistorical and innacurate claims about the secularist leanings of certain artists and works of art (he also mentions the Sistene Chapel)? I cCan't Ravenhill find one quote to support his claim that this is a big strain in cultural thought? (Again, perhaps it is so common in Britain that one needs not offer any supporting evidence, but I'm not so sure). And are the people who claim these things representatives of a wide spread mainstream cultural consensus? Or are they outliers in public cultural thought?
Where Ravenhill and I fundamnetally disagree, however, is in his column's conclusion:
Our Christian tradition is very different. We should celebrate the Christian
legacy in western art and society - and stop the Dawkins army from denying us
the possibility of drawing inspiration from faith to create the art of the
future.
I believe we need to work towards a complex reading of religion's influence on society that recognizes the good (which Ravenhill acknoweledges here) as well as the ills which people like Hitchens and Dawkins describe. One may outweigh the other, but that doesn't mean that the rather complex thousands-years-long history of religion in the world should be rendered simplistically, even if it does make us feel better or more certain in our views. Ravenhill, on the other hand, will brook no complexity. Despite the very dubious history of the Church of England- which includes oppresion and murder of Catholics and ethnic cleansing of Jews- Ravenhill only wants a celebration of the Christian legacy in western art and society. Can't we have both? Isn't there room for an acknolwedgement of the ills and the positives? Apparently not.
(crossposted to Parabasis)
No comments:
Post a Comment