This past quarter we have had the privilege, here at Ohio State, to be visited by a pair of superstars in the field of history. A few weeks ago Richard Kagan spoke here. Kagan is one of the world’s leading scholars on early modern Spanish empire in general and of the Inquisition in particular. I recommend his book, Lucrecia’s Dreams, as a possible cure for anyone still caught up in the notion that the Spanish Inquisition was simply a group of blood thirsty religious extremists whipping up religious fanaticism and superstition amongst the populace. Yesterday Caroline Walker Bynum came to speak. I have spoken about Bynum on this blog before. She is without question my favorite women’s history person; a model of how to write about women in such a way that is respectful to women on their own terms and does not devolve into handwringing about patriarchal oppression.
Her talk, entitled Weeping Statues, Bleeding Bread: Miracles in the Late Middle Ages, treaded her usual ground of late medieval Christian spirituality and miracle claims, though she did not particularly focus on women, but dealt more with the general context of these matters. Her ability to avoid moralizing and instead present the medieval world as those who lived in it might have experienced it was on full display. She spoke about transformation miracles, such as where statues were seen to weep tears or even blood or the bleeding Eucharist. Such miracles became more important in the later Middle Ages (thirteenth -sixteenth centuries). We have stories of images that come down from the wall and even protect themselves from iconoclasts. We have what are called Dauerwunder – lasting miracles. Not only did the object, such as an Eucharist change but it remained in this changed state. For Bynum these things demonstrate an increased interest in the daily encounter with the material and the struggle to integrate the physical and the spiritual. This is in contrast to the usual picture of the Middle Ages in which body and soul are supposed to be very separate.
While Bynum acknowledges the sinister role that these miracle stories played in anti-Jewish libels, she does not allow herself to sink into generalizing condemnations. She emphasizes the variety of positions as to the nature of the Eucharist. Theologians found themselves in a bind in dealing with popular devotion to the Eucharist and the belief in animated statues. There was the danger of idolatry; that people would come to worship these things. On the other hand there were the doctrines of creation and incarnation which assumed the ability for the divine to descend into physical objects. Some theologians argued that objects were just signs made to remind the believer. Yet these same theologians attacked Hussites and Lollards, who denied the power of relics. Aquinas argued that relics did not retain the form of the saint since the soul of the saint was in heaven. Yet he still believed that the relic was the saint since it would one day be reunited with the saint’s soul. Aquinas argued that bodily remains such as the foreskin of Christ could not exist because all of Christ went up to heaven and to say that he left part of his body behind is to take away part of his perfection.
Bynum integrates the medieval discourse on animated statues and the Eucharist with medieval natural philosophy. She draws a parallel to Giles of Rome’s defense of alchemy. Early medieval theologians were skeptical about alchemy. Giles of Rome argued that alchemy was no different than human beings making glass or the acts of Pharaoh’s magicians. This was all a matter of bodies being generated from other bodies. For the medieval there was no distinction between mechanical and biological reproduction.
This belief in transubstantiation was connected with medieval conceptions of nature, which saw miracles as extensions of the laws of nature. It made perfect sense that people would therefore believe in such things. It made sense that wafers would bleed and statues would walk. The belief in weeping statues and bleeding bread was not just a matter of the incredulity of the masses, but an opportunity for serious intellectual discourse as to the nature of the physical world.
During the question and answer section, after the speech, I got the opportunity to ask a question. I asked her if, by her discussion of these naturalistic conceptions of miracles, she was siding with those who argue for an earlier dating of the Scientific Revolution to the fourteenth century instead of the sixteenth century. She responded with good humor that it seems that no one in the field of history these days seems to believe in revolutions anymore. It is all long term processes. No, she still was sticking to the sixteenth century Scientific Revolution whatever that was supposed to mean.
Another interesting comment arouse out of the question of why there was such a shift in the later Middle Ages. Bynum responded that she had no explanation and that she rejects what is the dominant view that this shift came about due to the Fourth Lateran Council and its establishment of transubstantiation as official church dogma. Bynum argued that this did not reach popular consciousness and that even within the Church itself they were still debating the issue into the Reformation. I am interested to see if Bynum, in any of her books, deals with this issue in more detail. This issue is important for Jewish history because the general view as to the origins of the Host desecration charge is that it arose in the aftermath of the Fourth Lateran Council. The Jew became a stand in for the unbeliever in the power of the Eucharist and the charge of Host desecration an implicit polemic on behalf of transubstantiation; the fact that the Jews would make the effort to steal and torture the Eucharist shows that it really is the body of Christ.
(My discussion here has been based on the notes I took during the lecture. Any mistakes made are mine.)
Friday, November 14, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
What Would St. John Chrysostom Do? Some Thoughts on Attending the Columbus International Festival
This past weekend, I attended the Columbus International Festival. It was a rather dull event, brimming with cheap feel-good liberal slogans and advertisements for the United Nations. Not the sort of event that I would have bothered to go to on my own, but I was there a volunteer chaperone for the Columbus branch of Yachad.
I did have one interesting encounter, though, with a woman manning a booth for the St. John Chrysostom Byzantine Catholic Church. The fact that someone would put up a booth under the name of St. John Chrysostom at an event like this, with its emphasis on peace, love, tolerance and implicit ecumenism, struck me as a little odd. For all of you who are not familiar with St. John Chrysostom, he was a fourth century Church father, and without question one of the most important Christian thinkers to have lived between the time of the New Testament and St. Augustine. To students of Jewish-Christians relations, Chrysostom is a central example of early Christian anti-Semitism. His Adversus Judaeos Homilies make for very interesting reading. Some choice examples:
The festivals of the pitiful and miserable Jews are soon to march upon us one after the other and in quick succession: the feast of Trumpets, the feast of Tabernacles, the fasts. There are many in our ranks who say they think as we do. Yet some of these are going to watch the festivals and others will join the Jews in keeping their feasts and observing their fasts. I wish to drive this perverse custom from the Church right now. My homilies against the Anomians can be put off to another time, and the postponement would cause no harm. But now that the Jewish festivals are close by and at the very door, if I should fail to cure those who are sick with the Judaizing disease. I am afraid that, because of their ill-suited association and deep ignorance, some Christians may partake in the Jews' transgressions; once they have done so, I fear my homilies on these transgressions will be in vain. For if they hear no word from me today, they will then join the Jews in their fasts; once they have committed this sin it will be useless for me to apply the remedy. …
But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable. When so many blessings from heaven came into their hands, they thrust them aside and were at great pains to reject them. The morning Sun of Justice arose for them, but they thrust aside its rays and still sit in darkness. We, who were nurtured by darkness, drew the light to ourselves and were freed from the gloom of their error. They were the branches of that holy root, but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness. From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold. We did not hear the divine prophecies but we did worship him of whom they prophesied. And so they are pitiful because they rejected the blessings which were sent to them, while others seized hold of these blessing and drew them to themselves. Although those Jews had been called to the adoption of sons, they fell to kinship with dogs; we who were dogs received the strength, through God's grace, to put aside the irrational nature which was ours and to rise to the honor of sons.
Not that I hold this against Chrysostom. I am not inclined to moralize about his “intolerance” nor would I ever attempt to lecture Christians about him or tell them that they cannot venerate him as a saint and a great thinker; Jews say plenty of nasty things about Christians and I have no intention of throwing stones in a glass house. As far as I am concerned, Christians have no need to be apologetic about Chrysostom. He was a great thinker and orator, who lived in his own time and place and had his opinions. This is still no reason, though, to bring him to a celebration of different cultures and religions. So I went ever to the woman manning the booth and asked her if she thought that Chrysostom would have approved of this event. She tried to dodge the issue but I kept on pressing the matter. Finally, she responded that he probably would not have thought that such an event could be possible.
I am sure that Chrysostom would have wanted to attend this event. He would have stood around at his booth talking to the people passing by: “Hi there. You are going straight to Hell. You are going to Hell and you and you over there in the back, Satan is putting on the flames just for you.” Unfortunately, the woman manning the booth was not acting in this spirit. She was being really nice; she was not threatening anyone or raising any fire and brimstone. I think I would have liked having Chrysostom there. We could have ecumenically hated the event together.
I did have one interesting encounter, though, with a woman manning a booth for the St. John Chrysostom Byzantine Catholic Church. The fact that someone would put up a booth under the name of St. John Chrysostom at an event like this, with its emphasis on peace, love, tolerance and implicit ecumenism, struck me as a little odd. For all of you who are not familiar with St. John Chrysostom, he was a fourth century Church father, and without question one of the most important Christian thinkers to have lived between the time of the New Testament and St. Augustine. To students of Jewish-Christians relations, Chrysostom is a central example of early Christian anti-Semitism. His Adversus Judaeos Homilies make for very interesting reading. Some choice examples:
The festivals of the pitiful and miserable Jews are soon to march upon us one after the other and in quick succession: the feast of Trumpets, the feast of Tabernacles, the fasts. There are many in our ranks who say they think as we do. Yet some of these are going to watch the festivals and others will join the Jews in keeping their feasts and observing their fasts. I wish to drive this perverse custom from the Church right now. My homilies against the Anomians can be put off to another time, and the postponement would cause no harm. But now that the Jewish festivals are close by and at the very door, if I should fail to cure those who are sick with the Judaizing disease. I am afraid that, because of their ill-suited association and deep ignorance, some Christians may partake in the Jews' transgressions; once they have done so, I fear my homilies on these transgressions will be in vain. For if they hear no word from me today, they will then join the Jews in their fasts; once they have committed this sin it will be useless for me to apply the remedy. …
But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable. When so many blessings from heaven came into their hands, they thrust them aside and were at great pains to reject them. The morning Sun of Justice arose for them, but they thrust aside its rays and still sit in darkness. We, who were nurtured by darkness, drew the light to ourselves and were freed from the gloom of their error. They were the branches of that holy root, but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness. From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold. We did not hear the divine prophecies but we did worship him of whom they prophesied. And so they are pitiful because they rejected the blessings which were sent to them, while others seized hold of these blessing and drew them to themselves. Although those Jews had been called to the adoption of sons, they fell to kinship with dogs; we who were dogs received the strength, through God's grace, to put aside the irrational nature which was ours and to rise to the honor of sons.
Not that I hold this against Chrysostom. I am not inclined to moralize about his “intolerance” nor would I ever attempt to lecture Christians about him or tell them that they cannot venerate him as a saint and a great thinker; Jews say plenty of nasty things about Christians and I have no intention of throwing stones in a glass house. As far as I am concerned, Christians have no need to be apologetic about Chrysostom. He was a great thinker and orator, who lived in his own time and place and had his opinions. This is still no reason, though, to bring him to a celebration of different cultures and religions. So I went ever to the woman manning the booth and asked her if she thought that Chrysostom would have approved of this event. She tried to dodge the issue but I kept on pressing the matter. Finally, she responded that he probably would not have thought that such an event could be possible.
I am sure that Chrysostom would have wanted to attend this event. He would have stood around at his booth talking to the people passing by: “Hi there. You are going straight to Hell. You are going to Hell and you and you over there in the back, Satan is putting on the flames just for you.” Unfortunately, the woman manning the booth was not acting in this spirit. She was being really nice; she was not threatening anyone or raising any fire and brimstone. I think I would have liked having Chrysostom there. We could have ecumenically hated the event together.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
An Explanation of My Beliefs in Regards to the Constitution
In a comment to my last post, I was asked some questions in regards to constructionist and activist judges. I would like to take the opportunity to respond.
“What is the difference between a "constructionist" and "activist" judge? Who are some examples of each on the Supreme and Circuit courts?”
A constructionist judge believes that his job, as a judge, is to explain the Constitution. (Either in its literal meaning or based on how it was originally understood by those who wrote the relevant clauses.) An activist judge believes that the Constitution is a “living” document that must be interpreted in light of present morality or even based on International law. The activist view, in essence, is a license for judges to rule however they want; they become legislators more powerful even than Congress.
I think Scalia is a fine constructionist judge, committed to ruling based on constructionist principles. This does not mean that I agree with every decision he has ever made. I am sure if I were on the court I might make many different decisions, but it is only reasonable that people of good faith will have honest differences. Stephen Breyer is an activist judge; he has gone on the record supporting the use of foreign legal precedent in court rulings.
Barack Obama, in Audacity of Hope, talks about this issue and expresses his support for Breyer’s approach. I am sure Obama means well, but I see this approach as a sitting threat to a free society.
“Also, what are some cases which serve as examples of "reinterpreting" the Constitution to "create" a "civil right?”
The classic examples of activist rulings are Griswold vs. Connecticut, which established a constitutional right to use birth control based on a mythical right to privacy, which the court made up just for this occasion, and Roe vs. Wade, which established a right to abortion. Not that I want it to be illegal to use birth control or to have an abortion. If someone were to propose amending the Constitution in order to create a right to privacy I would support it. That being said, none of these things are in the Constitution and the people who wrote the relevant amendments did not intend to cover such rights. The whole concept of a right to privacy is hypocrisy anyway. Why does the right to privacy not allow me to grow marijuana in my own basement and smoke it there? Why can’t I make a private decision with my own doctor to sell my kidneys?
More recently the Supreme Courts of Massachusetts and California have ruled that homosexuals have a “civil right” to get married. Personally, I don’t have a problem with gay marriage. It seems perfectly reasonable for the government to revise its marriage laws to cover the changed circumstances in our society. But these courts, by inventing this new civil right, have declared that all those who do not actively support gay marriage are bigots, carriers of a type of belief that the government is allowed to actively fight against even with the believer's own money. Thus they have trampled the rights not of homosexuals but of all opponents of homosexuality.
“How extensive is this problem of judicial interpretation? Is it serious enough to be a deterministic factor in weighing your vote for the Presidency?”
At the end of the day, the practical differences between the parties are not that great. Both parties are pro-capitalism. Neither party is about to try to take down Wall St. On the other hand, both parties support some form of government-funded health care and government schools. No matter who is in power, billions will be spent on social welfare programs. For all the conservative talk about taxes, all of these things require money and people are going to get taxed to pay for these things. (There may even be a tax hike.) This may upset many radical Liberals but the United States military is going to consume a large chunk of government spending. The day when schools will have all the funds they need and the air force has to have a bake sale in order to buy bombs is not going to come anytime soon. I am not saying that any of this is good or bad, but the way our government is set up, with its two-party system politics, one is forced to keep pretty much to the center. The biggest difference between the parties is what sort of judges they will put in.
We are in the middle of a continued assault by radical Liberals/secularists to enforce their values on other people. This assault has been spearheaded by activist judges. For all the talk about Christian Fundamentalists trying to take over the country and threaten our liberties, for me the real threat comes from secularists. Their agenda goes way beyond creating a secular atmosphere and applying psychological pressure on people to conform to their views. They wish to take direct action that will physically force people to surrender their own personal beliefs.
“What is the difference between a "constructionist" and "activist" judge? Who are some examples of each on the Supreme and Circuit courts?”
A constructionist judge believes that his job, as a judge, is to explain the Constitution. (Either in its literal meaning or based on how it was originally understood by those who wrote the relevant clauses.) An activist judge believes that the Constitution is a “living” document that must be interpreted in light of present morality or even based on International law. The activist view, in essence, is a license for judges to rule however they want; they become legislators more powerful even than Congress.
I think Scalia is a fine constructionist judge, committed to ruling based on constructionist principles. This does not mean that I agree with every decision he has ever made. I am sure if I were on the court I might make many different decisions, but it is only reasonable that people of good faith will have honest differences. Stephen Breyer is an activist judge; he has gone on the record supporting the use of foreign legal precedent in court rulings.
Barack Obama, in Audacity of Hope, talks about this issue and expresses his support for Breyer’s approach. I am sure Obama means well, but I see this approach as a sitting threat to a free society.
“Also, what are some cases which serve as examples of "reinterpreting" the Constitution to "create" a "civil right?”
The classic examples of activist rulings are Griswold vs. Connecticut, which established a constitutional right to use birth control based on a mythical right to privacy, which the court made up just for this occasion, and Roe vs. Wade, which established a right to abortion. Not that I want it to be illegal to use birth control or to have an abortion. If someone were to propose amending the Constitution in order to create a right to privacy I would support it. That being said, none of these things are in the Constitution and the people who wrote the relevant amendments did not intend to cover such rights. The whole concept of a right to privacy is hypocrisy anyway. Why does the right to privacy not allow me to grow marijuana in my own basement and smoke it there? Why can’t I make a private decision with my own doctor to sell my kidneys?
More recently the Supreme Courts of Massachusetts and California have ruled that homosexuals have a “civil right” to get married. Personally, I don’t have a problem with gay marriage. It seems perfectly reasonable for the government to revise its marriage laws to cover the changed circumstances in our society. But these courts, by inventing this new civil right, have declared that all those who do not actively support gay marriage are bigots, carriers of a type of belief that the government is allowed to actively fight against even with the believer's own money. Thus they have trampled the rights not of homosexuals but of all opponents of homosexuality.
“How extensive is this problem of judicial interpretation? Is it serious enough to be a deterministic factor in weighing your vote for the Presidency?”
At the end of the day, the practical differences between the parties are not that great. Both parties are pro-capitalism. Neither party is about to try to take down Wall St. On the other hand, both parties support some form of government-funded health care and government schools. No matter who is in power, billions will be spent on social welfare programs. For all the conservative talk about taxes, all of these things require money and people are going to get taxed to pay for these things. (There may even be a tax hike.) This may upset many radical Liberals but the United States military is going to consume a large chunk of government spending. The day when schools will have all the funds they need and the air force has to have a bake sale in order to buy bombs is not going to come anytime soon. I am not saying that any of this is good or bad, but the way our government is set up, with its two-party system politics, one is forced to keep pretty much to the center. The biggest difference between the parties is what sort of judges they will put in.
We are in the middle of a continued assault by radical Liberals/secularists to enforce their values on other people. This assault has been spearheaded by activist judges. For all the talk about Christian Fundamentalists trying to take over the country and threaten our liberties, for me the real threat comes from secularists. Their agenda goes way beyond creating a secular atmosphere and applying psychological pressure on people to conform to their views. They wish to take direct action that will physically force people to surrender their own personal beliefs.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
My Optimistic Scenario for the Next Four Years
So the election has come and gone and as expected John McCain lost and Barack Obama won. I supported McCain and continue to have serious reservations about Obama, both in terms of the American economy and in terms of Israel. The Democrats now control the presidency and have greatly strengthened their hold over Congress and the Senate. The radical left is triumphant and no doubt they will push their advantage for all it is worth. That being said I am willing to be cautiously optimistic. For one thing, despite my disagreements with Obama, I respect the man; he has always struck me as a highly intelligent individual who, despite his personal liberalism, honestly desires to reach out and cut across the traditional ideological lines. Here is my optimistic scenario for the coming four years.
I do not believe that Obama is going to turn tail and run neither in the War in Iraq, specifically, or in the War on Terror, in general. Obama has nothing to lose and everything to gain from pursuing an aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East. If he fails it will be blamed on the Bush administration and if he succeeds he will be able to take the credit for himself. I suspect that the Left in this country and the European Union will be far more willing to support an aggressive foreign policy now that it is no longer the Bush administration taking the lead. Obama may, in fact, be better suited than George W. Bush to pursue an aggressive foreign policy because he will not be caught up in the us versus them in the liberal establishment trap; Obama will have no need because the establishment will be on his side. Just as it took Richard Nixon to go to China so to it might very well require an Obama to fight the War on Terror.
Personally, my number one reason for supporting Republicans is in order to make sure that strict constructionist judges are appointed and to stop Liberals from appointing activist judges who will reinterpret the Constitution to give Liberals everything they fail to get through the democratic process and call it a "civil right." The two best things President Bush did in his eight years in office was to appoint John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Obama defiantly will try to appoint activist judges. I do not think he will be able to too much damage. The only justice who is likely to step down over the next four years is John Paul Stevens, one of the courts most liberal members. We can assume that, one way or another, we will still have our four conservative judges (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito) and one judge (Kennedy) who usually can be relied upon.
Hopefully, Obama can be relied upon to do something stupid that will not do too much damage but will help bring about a Republican comeback in 2010 and even allow them to take back the White House in 2012. I am thinking along the lines of him going back on his campaign pledge not to raise the taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. I am really keen for him to fulfill his campaign promises to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which will enshrine Roe vs. Wade into Federal law, and support equal pay laws for women. These things should be enough to alienate the American center over the next few years, particularly as their anger toward Republicans cools.
Meanwhile, the Republicans can take the opportunity of this well-deserved defeat to take stock of their situation. This defeat may serve as a badly needed intervention to save them from themselves and maybe get them back to things like small government. I think there is little chance that the Republicans could ever have changed on their own without some disaster of Obama proportions. Of all the disasters that may have struck the Republican Party, I could imagine worse than an Obama presidency.
Hopefully over the next few years we can put together a Republican Party that we can be proud of.
I do not believe that Obama is going to turn tail and run neither in the War in Iraq, specifically, or in the War on Terror, in general. Obama has nothing to lose and everything to gain from pursuing an aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East. If he fails it will be blamed on the Bush administration and if he succeeds he will be able to take the credit for himself. I suspect that the Left in this country and the European Union will be far more willing to support an aggressive foreign policy now that it is no longer the Bush administration taking the lead. Obama may, in fact, be better suited than George W. Bush to pursue an aggressive foreign policy because he will not be caught up in the us versus them in the liberal establishment trap; Obama will have no need because the establishment will be on his side. Just as it took Richard Nixon to go to China so to it might very well require an Obama to fight the War on Terror.
Personally, my number one reason for supporting Republicans is in order to make sure that strict constructionist judges are appointed and to stop Liberals from appointing activist judges who will reinterpret the Constitution to give Liberals everything they fail to get through the democratic process and call it a "civil right." The two best things President Bush did in his eight years in office was to appoint John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Obama defiantly will try to appoint activist judges. I do not think he will be able to too much damage. The only justice who is likely to step down over the next four years is John Paul Stevens, one of the courts most liberal members. We can assume that, one way or another, we will still have our four conservative judges (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito) and one judge (Kennedy) who usually can be relied upon.
Hopefully, Obama can be relied upon to do something stupid that will not do too much damage but will help bring about a Republican comeback in 2010 and even allow them to take back the White House in 2012. I am thinking along the lines of him going back on his campaign pledge not to raise the taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. I am really keen for him to fulfill his campaign promises to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which will enshrine Roe vs. Wade into Federal law, and support equal pay laws for women. These things should be enough to alienate the American center over the next few years, particularly as their anger toward Republicans cools.
Meanwhile, the Republicans can take the opportunity of this well-deserved defeat to take stock of their situation. This defeat may serve as a badly needed intervention to save them from themselves and maybe get them back to things like small government. I think there is little chance that the Republicans could ever have changed on their own without some disaster of Obama proportions. Of all the disasters that may have struck the Republican Party, I could imagine worse than an Obama presidency.
Hopefully over the next few years we can put together a Republican Party that we can be proud of.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Secular Theodicy: A Review of Day of Empire (Part I)
The biblical narrative, particularly in Judges, Samuel and Kings, serves as a type of theodicy. The authors of these various books wish to convince the reader that the welfare of God’s chosen people rests on their obedience to God’s will. If things go well it is because the Israelites were righteous and if things do not go well it is because they sinned. While this may be true (And I am certainly inclined to think that there is something to this.), such a notion lies outside our knowledge as historians; historians are not prophets and can claim no knowledge about God’s existence, will, or plan for human history. Thus the biblical theodical model of historical narrative is unusable for the writing of history. Those who attempt to write such history (Be they Rabbi Berel Wein, Rabbi Avigdor Miller or Rabbi Yosef Eisen.) are not historians but intellectual frauds.
The problem is that we have no fixed standard with which to judge whether any given society is living a godly life. Our knowledge of God’s will, even from a religious perspective, is rather open ended so we have no clear-cut means of evaluating a godly society. How many points does a society have to score in order to count as godly and how many points are various actions worth? How many points does a society lose if they allow women to wear mini-skirts; what about if they tolerate club-wielding hooligans beating up women over the length of their skirts? Furthermore, since every society is a mixture of good and bad, we have no way of knowing if a given society is being rewarded for the righteousness of the few or punished for the wickedness of the few. Sodom and Gomorrah being the exceptions, every society can be assumed to have at least ten righteous people. So if a wicked, ungodly society succeeds it can always be passed off as due to the intercession of the righteous few. Conversely, if disaster strikes a righteous godly society it can always be passed off as punishment for the secret sins of the wicked few, hiding their idols/television sets behind their doors.
This sets the stage for radical levels of intellectual dishonesty if one wishes to try writing such a history. Since there are so many movable pieces one can fix the results to suit any desired conclusion. It is a heads I win tails you lose situation. God might have brought the Holocaust in order to punish secular Jews and saved the secular state of Israel in the Six Day War in the merit of the Orthodox minority. This of course may very well be true, but I could play this game to come up with anything that I want. For example, if you would indulge me in a little reductio ad absurdum, I could, with equal plausibility, argue that God is a Nazi, who treasures his German people, and wishes to lead them to greatness if only they would follow his will. In pursuit of this goal, God uses world Jewry to chastise the Nazis.
God gave the German people victory, as of the fall of 1941, over Poland, France, and the Soviet Union as a reward for obeying their divinely sent Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler, and to allow them to rid the world of the Jewish race. (God did not allow them to defeat England because he wanted there to remain a threat so that his German people would continue to cry out to him. Alternatively, God was being patient with the British people, also members of the German race, and was giving them one last chance to abandon the rule of Winston Churchill and return to the Germanic fold.) The fact that things turned against Germany can be attributed to the fact that they did not pursue the destruction of world Jewry with the proper zeal and show pure undiluted faith in their Fuehrer. The fact that the Germans had to turn to gas chambers and abandon the use of Einsatzgruppen as their primary mode of killing Jews showed a lack of Jew killing zeal. According to the Wannsee conference, the use of Einsatzgruppen as mobile firing squads was proving ineffective as it was having a negative on its members. Clearly, if Germans had been full of the proper Jew-killing zeal they should have been lining up for the honor of being able to personally shoot Jews and they should have been able to carry out this task with joy and a gladdened heart. Germans should have been able to kill Jews with the same gusto as the Poles and the Ukrainians, who, immediately upon being liberated by Germany, took it upon themselves to slaughter their Jewish neighbors. No German should have suffered negative psychological effects from carrying out such tasks. Later on, at the end of the war, many in the German high command thought that the elimination of Hungarian Jewry should take a back seat to fighting the advancing Soviet forces. There were even those like Himmler who wanted to make a deal with the Allies in order to save the Jews in exchange for protection after the war. It took a mere colonel like Adolf Eichmann to see that Hungarian Jewry was dealt with. Not only did the German leadership not pursue the murder of European Jews as they should they also failed to show the proper faith in their Fuehrer. Over and over it was demonstrated that Hitler was right yet there were those who questioned his decisions to hold the line on the Russian front and in North Africa. The lack of faith was so profound that members of the German high command attempted to assassinate Hitler. God miraculously saved Hitler by causing the bomb to be moved thus allowing for Hitler to survive with only some busted air drums and a withered hand.
Since the German people failed to properly follow God and their Fuehrer, God gave them into the hands of their enemies, the Americans, and the Russians, who put an end to the Third Reich and divided Germany up into East and West. Not only that but God allowed the Jews to rebuild their state and gain victory over the Arabs so that now world Jewry could exercise their power directly and not just through the banks and Hollywood. Next, God allowed for a wave of Jewish-inspired liberalism to sweep the Western world, forcing all proud lovers of the German race and ideals to have to go underground and live in secret. But even in these dark times, God has not abandoned his German people. As a comfort to the German race, he allowed them to kill off a third of world Jewry in the Holocaust. This serves to comfort the German people and as a sign of God’s promise to completely annihilate the Jews, restore the German people to their former glory and bring about the Final Reich.
(To be continued …)
The problem is that we have no fixed standard with which to judge whether any given society is living a godly life. Our knowledge of God’s will, even from a religious perspective, is rather open ended so we have no clear-cut means of evaluating a godly society. How many points does a society have to score in order to count as godly and how many points are various actions worth? How many points does a society lose if they allow women to wear mini-skirts; what about if they tolerate club-wielding hooligans beating up women over the length of their skirts? Furthermore, since every society is a mixture of good and bad, we have no way of knowing if a given society is being rewarded for the righteousness of the few or punished for the wickedness of the few. Sodom and Gomorrah being the exceptions, every society can be assumed to have at least ten righteous people. So if a wicked, ungodly society succeeds it can always be passed off as due to the intercession of the righteous few. Conversely, if disaster strikes a righteous godly society it can always be passed off as punishment for the secret sins of the wicked few, hiding their idols/television sets behind their doors.
This sets the stage for radical levels of intellectual dishonesty if one wishes to try writing such a history. Since there are so many movable pieces one can fix the results to suit any desired conclusion. It is a heads I win tails you lose situation. God might have brought the Holocaust in order to punish secular Jews and saved the secular state of Israel in the Six Day War in the merit of the Orthodox minority. This of course may very well be true, but I could play this game to come up with anything that I want. For example, if you would indulge me in a little reductio ad absurdum, I could, with equal plausibility, argue that God is a Nazi, who treasures his German people, and wishes to lead them to greatness if only they would follow his will. In pursuit of this goal, God uses world Jewry to chastise the Nazis.
God gave the German people victory, as of the fall of 1941, over Poland, France, and the Soviet Union as a reward for obeying their divinely sent Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler, and to allow them to rid the world of the Jewish race. (God did not allow them to defeat England because he wanted there to remain a threat so that his German people would continue to cry out to him. Alternatively, God was being patient with the British people, also members of the German race, and was giving them one last chance to abandon the rule of Winston Churchill and return to the Germanic fold.) The fact that things turned against Germany can be attributed to the fact that they did not pursue the destruction of world Jewry with the proper zeal and show pure undiluted faith in their Fuehrer. The fact that the Germans had to turn to gas chambers and abandon the use of Einsatzgruppen as their primary mode of killing Jews showed a lack of Jew killing zeal. According to the Wannsee conference, the use of Einsatzgruppen as mobile firing squads was proving ineffective as it was having a negative on its members. Clearly, if Germans had been full of the proper Jew-killing zeal they should have been lining up for the honor of being able to personally shoot Jews and they should have been able to carry out this task with joy and a gladdened heart. Germans should have been able to kill Jews with the same gusto as the Poles and the Ukrainians, who, immediately upon being liberated by Germany, took it upon themselves to slaughter their Jewish neighbors. No German should have suffered negative psychological effects from carrying out such tasks. Later on, at the end of the war, many in the German high command thought that the elimination of Hungarian Jewry should take a back seat to fighting the advancing Soviet forces. There were even those like Himmler who wanted to make a deal with the Allies in order to save the Jews in exchange for protection after the war. It took a mere colonel like Adolf Eichmann to see that Hungarian Jewry was dealt with. Not only did the German leadership not pursue the murder of European Jews as they should they also failed to show the proper faith in their Fuehrer. Over and over it was demonstrated that Hitler was right yet there were those who questioned his decisions to hold the line on the Russian front and in North Africa. The lack of faith was so profound that members of the German high command attempted to assassinate Hitler. God miraculously saved Hitler by causing the bomb to be moved thus allowing for Hitler to survive with only some busted air drums and a withered hand.
Since the German people failed to properly follow God and their Fuehrer, God gave them into the hands of their enemies, the Americans, and the Russians, who put an end to the Third Reich and divided Germany up into East and West. Not only that but God allowed the Jews to rebuild their state and gain victory over the Arabs so that now world Jewry could exercise their power directly and not just through the banks and Hollywood. Next, God allowed for a wave of Jewish-inspired liberalism to sweep the Western world, forcing all proud lovers of the German race and ideals to have to go underground and live in secret. But even in these dark times, God has not abandoned his German people. As a comfort to the German race, he allowed them to kill off a third of world Jewry in the Holocaust. This serves to comfort the German people and as a sign of God’s promise to completely annihilate the Jews, restore the German people to their former glory and bring about the Final Reich.
(To be continued …)
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Rape is Never Funny (Except when it Involves Shakespeare or Stanley Kubrick )
A few weeks ago, in our book club, one of the guys made a crack about rape. This elicited a heated response from a number of people, particularly one of the girls who declared: “rape is never funny.” This past week we got a visit from one of the administrators of Aspirations who spoke to us and told us in no uncertain terms that, while we were all adults and it was acceptable to talk about adult topics, jokes about rape would not be tolerated in the group. With all due respect to feminists and other concerned people, while rape is a horrible act, it is one horrible act among many others and like all other horrible acts, and, in part, because it is such a horrible act, it is subject to humor and can be very funny.
One of my all-time favorite films is Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. It is about the world getting blown to bits in a nuclear holocaust, courtesy of Peter Sellers (in three roles) and George C. Scott. The climax of the film is a man falling out a bomber while riding an atom bomb and waving his cowboy hat. This is soon followed by mushroom clouds going up across the globe to soft relaxing music. I may be perverse but I do find something funny about the annihilation of almost the entire human race. (Those lacking a convenient mine shaft to flee to.) It would seem only a matter of consistency that if I could laugh at the idea of billions of people dying than I should also be able to laugh at the idea of one person being raped. And Stanley Kubrick helps us on this front with Clockwork Orange, which has rape set to Beethoven’s Ode to Joy.
Clearly, rape can be funny; even Shakespeare uses rape for laughs. In Titus Andronicus, Demetrius and Chiron rape Titus’ daughter, Livinia, (and, for good measure, they also cut off her hands and slice out her tongue.)
Demetrius: So, now go tell, and if thy tongue can speak,
Who’t was that cut thy tongue and ravish’d thee.
Chiron: Write down thy mind, bewray thy meaning so
And if thy stumps will let thee play the scribe.
Demetrius: She, how with signs and tokens she can scrowl.
Chiron: Go home, call for sweet water, wash thy hands.
Demetrius: She hath no tongue to call, nor hands to wash:
And so let’s leave her to her silent walks.
Chiron An ‘twere my case I should go hang myself.
Demetrius: If though hadst hands to help thee knit the cord.
[Titus Andronicus act II scene IV)
For all you feminists out there, Titus gets his revenge on Chiron and Demetrius; he cuts their throats and has Livinia hold a bowl in her stumps to catch the blood. Titus then bakes them into meat pies, (so Sweeney Todd like) which he serves to their mother Tamora. (Titus then kills Livinia to “end” her shame.)
Rape can even make for good family-friendly musical fun. Consider the Fantasticks with its Rape Song:
Rape!
R-a-a-a-pe!
Raa-aa-aa-pe!
A pretty rape!
A literary rape!
We've the obvious open schoolboy rape,
With little mandolins
and perhaps a cape.
The rape by coach;
it's little in request.
The rape by day,
but the rape by night is best.
Just try to see it.
And you will soon agree, señors,
Why Invite regret,
When you can get the sort of rape
You'll never ever forget.
You can get the rape emphatic.
You can get the rape polite.
You can get the rape with Indians:
A very charming sight.
You can get the rape on horseback;
They'll all say it's new and gay.
So you see the sort of rape
Depends on what you pay.
It depends on what you pay.
And the song continues for several more verses, all involving suggestions of possible styles for a good “rape.” (This is meant as a staged abduction of a girl by a theatrical troupe so that her neighbor will be able to come to her “rescue” and bring about all manner of happy endings.)
I raised some of these issues with the administrator. I asked him if we would even be allowed to read something like Titus Andronicus, considering how it makes fun of rape. I also asked him if he thought the Fantasticks, with its singing about rape, could be considered funny. His response was that yes such things were funny, but that it was only funny when done by such people. Apparently, rape is only funny when it is in a published source. I am reminded of the Haredi response when faced with the fact that great rabbis in the past had done something that they now wish to ban: "it was ok for them, because they were so great and because they lived in holier times. But we should not be allowed to do this."
I am not trying to minimize the real-life horrors of rape. I also recognize that society has certain conventions about making jokes about bad things in front of people who have suffered them. (For example one does not crack Holocaust jokes in front of Holocaust survivors.) I can accept that rape is included in this convention so one must be careful in whose company one makes rape jokes. But to say that somehow rape is not funny is absolutely ludicrous. Personally, I take Shakespeare, Stanley Kubrick, and the Fantasticks as better guides to what is funny than any angry feminist.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Karaites in Byzantium: A Fifty Year Retrospective
Zvi Ankori’s Karaites in Byzantium: the Formitive years, 970-1100 was published fifty years ago and remains an important text in the field. To this day Karaites are still at the margins of Jewish studies, a Jewish sect that arose sometime in the eight century which shows up from time to time but of no great consequence. Ankori (who used to teach here at Ohio State) serves to take Karaites out of their origins with Anan and even beyond the ninth century Mourners of Zion. Ankori is concerned with the next step, to go beyond narrative of great Karaite intellectuals to dealing with the creation of a dynamic Karaite community. In this, Ankori focuses specifically on the Karaite community in Byzantium during the tenth and eleventh centuries. This community serves the interests of Ankori in that it takes Karaites out of their origins, thus presenting a community in flux. This Karaite community lived outside of the Islamic world from which it sprung and now lived under Christian rule. In terms of internal communal dynamics this presented a shift away from the orbit of the Karaite community in Palestine, the center of Karaite authority up until the Crusades. This led to certain practical changes such as a shift away from Arabic toward Hebrew and the accommodation to and eventual acceptance of the rabbinic calendar. This also involved a more fundamental shift in how Karaites understood themselves and how they related to their various opponents, whether Jewish rabbinites or gentiles.
Ankori was a student of Salo W. Baron and Baron’s influence is clearly manifested. Baron opposed what he termed as the “lachrymose” view of Jewish history in which Jewish history is a catalogue of Jewish suffering at the hands of an oppressive gentile world. Such a view sees Jews as distinctively separate from this gentile world and as passive figures in this drama. Baron saw the Jewish communities in medieval Islam and Christendom as dynamic participants of the world that they lived in and not mere passive victims. Jews were affected by the same currents that affected everyone else and not simply shut away on their own. For Baron this is not a matter of were Jews “rationalists” or did they contribute their fair share to the advancement of mankind. Baron was more interested in the Jewish community being part of the medieval world and Jews being products of the general social and economic superstructure.
Because of this Baron’s style of writing has an overlay of intellectual history, but this intellectual history is rooted in a social history, focused on communal and economic structures. Eschewing essentialist views, Baron emphasized variety and change. He brought to his Social and Religious History of the Jews (This work comes out to eighteen volumes and he never even got up to the modern period.) a sense of absolute thoroughness and an emphasis on records but this came at the expense of narrative. Considering the vast scope of his work, this lack of narrative turns his history into a vast parade of material with little in the way of an overarching structure to serve as a guide. This makes his books difficult to read, even for historians, let alone for anyone else.
Ankori's approach to Karaites follows this lead. His Karaites are a part of the Jewish community and of the world at large, interact with them, and are affected by the shifts in both. While the figures of the Karaite Tobias b. Moshe and the rabbinite Tobias b. Eliezer of Castoria cast a prominent shadow through most of the book they are not the subjects of the book. Rather they serve to illustrate the dynamics of Karaite and rabbinite polemics. Ankori is not interested in the back and forth of Karaite and rabbinite debates as an end in of itself, though the book can serve that end. Rather the writings of these two Tobiases serve to illustrate the wider world of Karaite and rabbinite interactions and how fluid and interrelated these two Jewish communities were. Karaites in Byzantium is a social history, emphasizing communal and economic structures. His mastery of his source material is nothing if not awe inspiring. If there is one drawback to the book is that, as a follower of Baron, Ankori has no use for narrative, which makes him difficult to read. His analysis is often brilliant though often shows a tendency to try to overwork his sources beyond what they could possibly supply. The fact that he had to work with such meager amounts of information (He wrote this book decades before the vast Judaic collections held by the Soviet Union in Leningrad was opened to scholars.) leads one to treat this with some level of charity. Ultimately Karaites in Byzantium is a grand monument to scholarship but lacks any sustained narrative to support its wide ended scope, thus making for a book that is inaccessible to all but the few specialists in the field.
Ankori was a student of Salo W. Baron and Baron’s influence is clearly manifested. Baron opposed what he termed as the “lachrymose” view of Jewish history in which Jewish history is a catalogue of Jewish suffering at the hands of an oppressive gentile world. Such a view sees Jews as distinctively separate from this gentile world and as passive figures in this drama. Baron saw the Jewish communities in medieval Islam and Christendom as dynamic participants of the world that they lived in and not mere passive victims. Jews were affected by the same currents that affected everyone else and not simply shut away on their own. For Baron this is not a matter of were Jews “rationalists” or did they contribute their fair share to the advancement of mankind. Baron was more interested in the Jewish community being part of the medieval world and Jews being products of the general social and economic superstructure.
Because of this Baron’s style of writing has an overlay of intellectual history, but this intellectual history is rooted in a social history, focused on communal and economic structures. Eschewing essentialist views, Baron emphasized variety and change. He brought to his Social and Religious History of the Jews (This work comes out to eighteen volumes and he never even got up to the modern period.) a sense of absolute thoroughness and an emphasis on records but this came at the expense of narrative. Considering the vast scope of his work, this lack of narrative turns his history into a vast parade of material with little in the way of an overarching structure to serve as a guide. This makes his books difficult to read, even for historians, let alone for anyone else.
Ankori's approach to Karaites follows this lead. His Karaites are a part of the Jewish community and of the world at large, interact with them, and are affected by the shifts in both. While the figures of the Karaite Tobias b. Moshe and the rabbinite Tobias b. Eliezer of Castoria cast a prominent shadow through most of the book they are not the subjects of the book. Rather they serve to illustrate the dynamics of Karaite and rabbinite polemics. Ankori is not interested in the back and forth of Karaite and rabbinite debates as an end in of itself, though the book can serve that end. Rather the writings of these two Tobiases serve to illustrate the wider world of Karaite and rabbinite interactions and how fluid and interrelated these two Jewish communities were. Karaites in Byzantium is a social history, emphasizing communal and economic structures. His mastery of his source material is nothing if not awe inspiring. If there is one drawback to the book is that, as a follower of Baron, Ankori has no use for narrative, which makes him difficult to read. His analysis is often brilliant though often shows a tendency to try to overwork his sources beyond what they could possibly supply. The fact that he had to work with such meager amounts of information (He wrote this book decades before the vast Judaic collections held by the Soviet Union in Leningrad was opened to scholars.) leads one to treat this with some level of charity. Ultimately Karaites in Byzantium is a grand monument to scholarship but lacks any sustained narrative to support its wide ended scope, thus making for a book that is inaccessible to all but the few specialists in the field.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Being Part of the Disabled Community Versus Being a Member of a Minority Group (Part III)
(Part I)
(Part II)
The differences separating me, as someone on the high functioning end of the autism spectrum, from those on the lower end of the spectrum (and their parents and advocates) was starkly illustrated to me at a recent Autism Speaks Walk in Columbus. I attended the event as a member of Aspirations, an autism support group here at Ohio State. I assumed that the event would be a show of unity and support for autistics across the spectrum. The event was held at the Schottenstein Center, the basketball arena for the Buckeyes, and over nine thousand people attended. I loved the whole atmosphere and being there with my friends from Aspirations. My joy at being at this event lasted up until the moment the first speaker started talking and went down from there. I had to sit in the stands and listen as a parade of people got up and spoke about autism, how it is an “epidemic,” and a “disease” that needed to be “cured.” Sitting in the crowd and listening to these speeches, I felt like I had been used and taken advantage of. This was not what I came for. Imagine a black person going to a civil rights rally only to find himself being called an N-word and hearing that his blackness was a "disease" that needed to be cured.
Believe me, I recognize the incredible difficulties that parents of low functioning autistic children must go through. For that matter, I know that I was not an easy child for my parents to raise. I am sure my parents would have benefited from having someone to explain what was going on with me and to offer support. And parents of autistic children need all the help and support they can get. But that is the point; help and support is not a cure. Even in terms of support, though, there are differences. What my parents needed was not a medical professional to make me “functional” or to act like a “normal” person. Their needs were not all that different from that of parents of gay children. They would have benefited from having a professional tell them that yes I was “different,” that this was not a bad thing, that it was not their “fault” that I was who I was and that there was nothing they could do to “fix” me. All they could do was accept me for who I was, to try to understand my alternative way of life and be the advocates and the support I needed. (All in all, I think my parents did a pretty good job without any professional help.)
As someone with Asperger syndrome, I do not see myself as disabled in any fashion. On the contrary, I thank God every day for giving me the gift of Asperger syndrome. I look at other people and I wonder how they live such dull neurotypical lives. My life may be lonely much of the time but it is certainly interesting. If you offered me a "cure" for my Asperger syndrome I would laugh at you and throw it in your face. More than that, though, the very notion that I would need to be "cured" is an insult; it implies that my way of life is somehow less than other's peoples. This is no different from those who would suggest that homosexuals should be "cured."
Ultimately, there were different interests at stake at this Autism Speaks Walk. It was organized primarily by parents of low functioning autistic children. For them, autism is a disability that needs to be cured. For me, and others with Asperger syndrome, autism is an alternative way of life. These interests directly conflict with each other; the mere existence and public visibility of each side harms the other. Having low functioning autistics in play is detrimental to me because it opens up the charge that I, as an autistic, am disabled as well. Whether it is fair or not, I am tainted by the mere association. On the other hand, while I may be useful as an advocate for autism, I present a tremendous inconvenience for those dealing with low functioning autism. I take away from the narrative of autism as a disability. No one is going to come away from meeting me overwhelmed with pity at the horrible state of those living with autism. Furthermore, the fact that I am as functional as I am raises an implicit challenge to those less fortunate than me. If I could succeed what does it say about those who do not? This may not be fair but it taints them with failure.
I have Asperger syndrome and I am proud of it. My way of life is equally legitimate to that of other people. I will continue to fight for myself and for others with Asperger syndrome so that we should be able to have our stake in our multicultural society.
(Part II)
The differences separating me, as someone on the high functioning end of the autism spectrum, from those on the lower end of the spectrum (and their parents and advocates) was starkly illustrated to me at a recent Autism Speaks Walk in Columbus. I attended the event as a member of Aspirations, an autism support group here at Ohio State. I assumed that the event would be a show of unity and support for autistics across the spectrum. The event was held at the Schottenstein Center, the basketball arena for the Buckeyes, and over nine thousand people attended. I loved the whole atmosphere and being there with my friends from Aspirations. My joy at being at this event lasted up until the moment the first speaker started talking and went down from there. I had to sit in the stands and listen as a parade of people got up and spoke about autism, how it is an “epidemic,” and a “disease” that needed to be “cured.” Sitting in the crowd and listening to these speeches, I felt like I had been used and taken advantage of. This was not what I came for. Imagine a black person going to a civil rights rally only to find himself being called an N-word and hearing that his blackness was a "disease" that needed to be cured.
Believe me, I recognize the incredible difficulties that parents of low functioning autistic children must go through. For that matter, I know that I was not an easy child for my parents to raise. I am sure my parents would have benefited from having someone to explain what was going on with me and to offer support. And parents of autistic children need all the help and support they can get. But that is the point; help and support is not a cure. Even in terms of support, though, there are differences. What my parents needed was not a medical professional to make me “functional” or to act like a “normal” person. Their needs were not all that different from that of parents of gay children. They would have benefited from having a professional tell them that yes I was “different,” that this was not a bad thing, that it was not their “fault” that I was who I was and that there was nothing they could do to “fix” me. All they could do was accept me for who I was, to try to understand my alternative way of life and be the advocates and the support I needed. (All in all, I think my parents did a pretty good job without any professional help.)
As someone with Asperger syndrome, I do not see myself as disabled in any fashion. On the contrary, I thank God every day for giving me the gift of Asperger syndrome. I look at other people and I wonder how they live such dull neurotypical lives. My life may be lonely much of the time but it is certainly interesting. If you offered me a "cure" for my Asperger syndrome I would laugh at you and throw it in your face. More than that, though, the very notion that I would need to be "cured" is an insult; it implies that my way of life is somehow less than other's peoples. This is no different from those who would suggest that homosexuals should be "cured."
Ultimately, there were different interests at stake at this Autism Speaks Walk. It was organized primarily by parents of low functioning autistic children. For them, autism is a disability that needs to be cured. For me, and others with Asperger syndrome, autism is an alternative way of life. These interests directly conflict with each other; the mere existence and public visibility of each side harms the other. Having low functioning autistics in play is detrimental to me because it opens up the charge that I, as an autistic, am disabled as well. Whether it is fair or not, I am tainted by the mere association. On the other hand, while I may be useful as an advocate for autism, I present a tremendous inconvenience for those dealing with low functioning autism. I take away from the narrative of autism as a disability. No one is going to come away from meeting me overwhelmed with pity at the horrible state of those living with autism. Furthermore, the fact that I am as functional as I am raises an implicit challenge to those less fortunate than me. If I could succeed what does it say about those who do not? This may not be fair but it taints them with failure.
I have Asperger syndrome and I am proud of it. My way of life is equally legitimate to that of other people. I will continue to fight for myself and for others with Asperger syndrome so that we should be able to have our stake in our multicultural society.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Ohio State is One of the Most Gay Friendly Schools in the Country
As I have been talking about gay rights on college campuses I thought it would be worthwhile to note that according to an article published today in the student newspaper, the Lantern, Ohio State has been ranked as one of the most LGBT friendly campuses in the country by the LGBT-Friendly Campus Climate Index. We were given an overall 5 out of 5. We scored perfect fives in seven out of eight categories. We only scored a 4.5 on housing, though. We were docked a half a point because we do not offer a separate residence hall for LGBT students. Following this logic it would seem that we should dock the school a half a point in terms of heterosexual housing since there is no heterosexual residence hall. Think about it. I, as a heterosexual student, have been robbed of the opportunity to live, study and grow in a gay free environment. (Not that I really care less one way or another.)
As anyone who has ever gone to Ohio State knows there is really only one thing that matters which is of course beating Michigan which we did. Michigan only scored an overall 4.5. I think this is a victory over Michigan that I could do without.
As anyone who has ever gone to Ohio State knows there is really only one thing that matters which is of course beating Michigan which we did. Michigan only scored an overall 4.5. I think this is a victory over Michigan that I could do without.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Being Part of the Disabled Community Versus Being a Member of a Minority Group (Part II)
(Part I)
The relationship between a high functioning paraplegic to the general physically disabled community parallels the relationship between Asperger syndrome and the general autistic community. My interests, as someone with Asperger syndrome, are very different from people on the lower end of the spectrum. As I have previously argued, what I require from society is not charity or help as a disabled person but to be recognized as a member of a minority group with its own, equally legitimate, way of looking at the world. I should be placed on the multiculturalism umbrella, neurodiversity in my case.
The conflicts that I tend to get into with neurotypicals are the sort of conflicts that come about when a minority is faced with a member of the majority culture, who lacks proper multicultural awareness. For example, I once got a bad grade on a Spanish test. The problem was that, in keeping with my Asperger way of thinking, I took a number of questions very literally and did not give the answers that the teacher wanted. For example, I listed lizards as an animal that one would find in the ocean. This is technically speaking true. A Komodo dragon is a lizard and it does spend a lot of time in the ocean. I went over to the teacher and proceeded to try to explain my case. As someone with Asperger syndrome, I tend to speak in a highly theatrical manner. I speak loudly and I gesticulate a lot with my hands. I also tend to hunch my shoulders and bear down on people. So here I am, a six-foot male, standing over a female, not much over five feet tall, speaking loudly, waving my hands and bearing down on her. From the perspective of someone wedded to neurotypical assumptions, this looked like me threatening her. The teacher ended up asking me to go to her supervisor. Not only that but a bystander ended up calling the cops. In truth, though, I was not threatening the teacher. I was simply speaking in a manner that was in keeping with my Asperger being. From the perspective of pure reason, this mode of speaking is equally legitimate to neurotypical styles of speaking. I did not strike the teacher nor did I cause her any physical harm. It is only the neurotypical bias that interprets this as aggressive behavior. This incident is no different from a white or a heterosexual teacher misinterpreting the verbal and physical cues of a black or a gay student as something threatening. The fact that the teacher felt threatened is not my fault. (Or at least not completely.) The real fault lies with the teacher who lacked the cultural sensitivity to appreciate the utter relativity of her own cultural assumptions.
This story has a happy ending. I sent the teacher an e-mail in which I explained what Asperger syndrome was and that I was not threatening her in the least. I apologized to her for the misunderstanding and the matter was dropped. I was even awarded some of the points I had lost on the test. For better or for worse I had to be content with this. If I were black, gay or some other minority group with more cultural clot than Asperger syndrome maybe the university would have sent me an apology, assuring me of the university's commitment to maintaining a neurologically diverse environment. Maybe the teacher would have been forced to undergo sensitivity training and would have received a reprimand telling her to get with the neurodiversity agenda of the university or find other employment.
To strengthen my case, I, as someone with Asperger syndrome, actually have certain innate advantages over neurotypicals, unlike people who are black or gay who have no advantages beyond their own personal skills. Because I have Asperger syndrome I have a certain knack for interpreting texts. While I may have certain difficulties with dealing with other human beings and processing non-analytical information such as body language, I am very proficient when it comes to reading analytical information such as texts. Think of Asperger syndrome handling textual information as the equivalent of being seven feet tall and playing basketball. So not only should universities recruit me as a student, create an Asperger friendly environment for and, when the time comes, hire me as a professor as a matter of neurodiversity they should be doing these things out of pure self-interest. In essence, I should be receiving everything that blacks and gays receive and more.
(To be continued …)
The relationship between a high functioning paraplegic to the general physically disabled community parallels the relationship between Asperger syndrome and the general autistic community. My interests, as someone with Asperger syndrome, are very different from people on the lower end of the spectrum. As I have previously argued, what I require from society is not charity or help as a disabled person but to be recognized as a member of a minority group with its own, equally legitimate, way of looking at the world. I should be placed on the multiculturalism umbrella, neurodiversity in my case.
The conflicts that I tend to get into with neurotypicals are the sort of conflicts that come about when a minority is faced with a member of the majority culture, who lacks proper multicultural awareness. For example, I once got a bad grade on a Spanish test. The problem was that, in keeping with my Asperger way of thinking, I took a number of questions very literally and did not give the answers that the teacher wanted. For example, I listed lizards as an animal that one would find in the ocean. This is technically speaking true. A Komodo dragon is a lizard and it does spend a lot of time in the ocean. I went over to the teacher and proceeded to try to explain my case. As someone with Asperger syndrome, I tend to speak in a highly theatrical manner. I speak loudly and I gesticulate a lot with my hands. I also tend to hunch my shoulders and bear down on people. So here I am, a six-foot male, standing over a female, not much over five feet tall, speaking loudly, waving my hands and bearing down on her. From the perspective of someone wedded to neurotypical assumptions, this looked like me threatening her. The teacher ended up asking me to go to her supervisor. Not only that but a bystander ended up calling the cops. In truth, though, I was not threatening the teacher. I was simply speaking in a manner that was in keeping with my Asperger being. From the perspective of pure reason, this mode of speaking is equally legitimate to neurotypical styles of speaking. I did not strike the teacher nor did I cause her any physical harm. It is only the neurotypical bias that interprets this as aggressive behavior. This incident is no different from a white or a heterosexual teacher misinterpreting the verbal and physical cues of a black or a gay student as something threatening. The fact that the teacher felt threatened is not my fault. (Or at least not completely.) The real fault lies with the teacher who lacked the cultural sensitivity to appreciate the utter relativity of her own cultural assumptions.
This story has a happy ending. I sent the teacher an e-mail in which I explained what Asperger syndrome was and that I was not threatening her in the least. I apologized to her for the misunderstanding and the matter was dropped. I was even awarded some of the points I had lost on the test. For better or for worse I had to be content with this. If I were black, gay or some other minority group with more cultural clot than Asperger syndrome maybe the university would have sent me an apology, assuring me of the university's commitment to maintaining a neurologically diverse environment. Maybe the teacher would have been forced to undergo sensitivity training and would have received a reprimand telling her to get with the neurodiversity agenda of the university or find other employment.
To strengthen my case, I, as someone with Asperger syndrome, actually have certain innate advantages over neurotypicals, unlike people who are black or gay who have no advantages beyond their own personal skills. Because I have Asperger syndrome I have a certain knack for interpreting texts. While I may have certain difficulties with dealing with other human beings and processing non-analytical information such as body language, I am very proficient when it comes to reading analytical information such as texts. Think of Asperger syndrome handling textual information as the equivalent of being seven feet tall and playing basketball. So not only should universities recruit me as a student, create an Asperger friendly environment for and, when the time comes, hire me as a professor as a matter of neurodiversity they should be doing these things out of pure self-interest. In essence, I should be receiving everything that blacks and gays receive and more.
(To be continued …)
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Being Part of the Disabled Community Versus Being a Member of a Minority Group (Part I)
I have a friend who is a quadriplegic. While he gets around in a wheelchair, I would not, though, view him as disabled; he leads a perfectly functional life and, to the best of my knowledge, is completely self-sufficient. Everything he does, though, takes thought and planning. For example, he can drive, but he needs to use a special contraption that allows him to control the breaks and the accelerator by hand. (FDR used something similar when he drove.) Getting in and out of a car is an elaborate ritual. He has to break his wheelchair down in order to get it into the back. To get out he needs to put the wheelchair back together and shift his body from the seat of the car into the chair. I admire him for how he is able to live, particularly since I am certain that I, put in a similar situation, God forbid, would not be able to cope like he does.
To make the issue of disability more complicated, my quadriplegic friend has certain advantages over other people. Since his lifestyle requires such constant awareness, he possesses a set of thinking patterns that most other people do not have. I imagine that it is only a matter of time and advocacy until people in the general business community realize that the skills that people like my friend have are a lot more valuable to a company than a functional pair of legs and start actively hiring people in wheelchairs not as a matter of charity or goodwill but as a matter of simple self-interest. We may see a time when “wheelchair thinking” becomes a valuable skill to be taught even to those not in wheelchairs.
From a perspective of disability advocacy, my friend is a two-edged sword. On one hand he is a poster child for what people can do even from a wheelchair. On the other hand, having someone like him can be counter-productive. He does not inspire pity; people do not come away from meeting him thinking what a horrible situation he is in and how miserable it must be to be a quadriplegic. He inspires hope and hope can be a dangerous thing. He creates a standard that is hard to live up to. What does one say to those quadriplegics who never become as functional as he is; are they “failures?” As I see it, the needs of my friend are very different than that of a traditionally disabled person. His situation is a closer fit to being a minority. He does not need people to “help” him; what he requires is tolerance, a certain awareness and understanding on the part of society. People need to get over their ambulatory biases and realize that there are people who live their lives without a functional pair of legs and that this is a perfectly legitimate lifestyle option.
My friend’s situation as very high functioning quadriplegic is not that different from being black or being gay. I work and study on a college campus. We have black advocacy groups to make sure that I, as a white person from a middle-class background, do not immediately assume that if a male black student comes into class wearing baggy jeans, a baseball cap in backward and several gold necklaces that he is a criminal likely to mug me on my way home. Similarly, there are gay advocacy groups to make sure that I, as a heterosexual male, do not freak out and assume that if a gay student comes over to me and compliments me on my fashion sense that this student had a crush on me and is trying to tempt me into having gay sex with him. I should not feel threatened by having gay students. As their history teacher, I should not be yelling at them that they are evil sinners, going against nature and are bound straight to hell. I should also not try to “turn” them straight or tell them that I am praying for them to change their ways. I need to understand that my way of life and my values do not apply to everyone. That other people have alternative lifestyles that are perfectly legitimate. Being on a college campus means living in a multicultural environment; if I cannot manage that I should find employment somewhere else.
(To be continued …)
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Michael Moore Learns about Patriotism: Some Thoughts on American Carol
Before the film, American Carol, started there was an ad for the National Guard. It featured National Guard troops in action spliced with Dale Earnhardt Jr. driving in a NASCAR race with heavy metal music in the background. I take it as a good sign that I am capable of looking at something like this with a mixture of confusion and amusement. I take it as a sign that I am not some mindless drone of the conservative movement. I am not certain what Dale Earnhardt Jr., who I am sure is a wonderful guy, and a patriot who supports our troops, and NASCAR has to do with the National Guard. The dramatic high point of the ad was a scene in which a Humvee full of American soldiers is driving full-throttle through the dusty streets of a Middle Eastern town when all of a sudden a soccer ball crosses the Humvee’s path. The Humvee breaks and comes to a complete stop right in front of the soccer ball. A soldier gets out and with a nod from his commanding officer kicks the ball over to a Muslim boy, who looks back at the American soldier with a look of awe, gratitude, and respect. Upon seeing this, I broke laughing; this was too over the top to bear. I think it is a problem when you cannot tell the difference between a propaganda piece and a piece of satire.
American Carol bills itself as the first conservative film to come out of mainstream Hollywood and is devoted to sticking it to the liberal establishment. (I would point to Team America: World Police as a film that preceded it.) It is a send-up to Charles Dickens’ Christmas Carol and spoofs Michael Moore. It features an overweight radical leftist documentary filmmaker in a Michigan State baseball cap named Michael Malone in the role of Ebenezer Scrooge. Malone despises all things American, including his tall good-looking all all-American nephew, who is serving in the Navy. He hates America so much that he wishes to abolish the Fourth of July. The night before he is to speak at an abolish the Fourth of July rally, Malone is visited by the spirits of John F. Kennedy, George S. Patton, and George Washington, who teach him the true meaning of patriotism.
I laughed my heart out through the film’s eighty-plus minutes and would have loved to have gotten more. I am not sure what was my favorite bit; a group of black slaves breaking out into hava nagilah while picking cotton or the shootout with ACLU zombies out to deliver injunctions to make it impossible to check the bags of potential terrorists and destroy the Ten Commandments. (This still does not compare to season four of Twenty-Four when the villain, upon finding out that one of his people had been captured, calls a group named Amnesty Global to inform them that an innocent man was being illegally held by CTU. A lawyer from Amnesty Global then shows up with a court order, banning CTU from questioning the person they hold. Fortunately, Jack Bauer ignores this and proceeds to break the guy’s fingers one by one until he gives over the information necessary to save the day and stop a nuclear device from wiping out Los Angeles.)
I feel that I can recommend this film to everyone across the political spectrum, without any sense of guilt, as a hands-down brilliant piece of political satire. I am not saying this simply because I agree with the film’s politics. I enjoyed watching Michael Moore’s films too. Bowling for Columbine was absolutely hilarious and even Fahrenheit 9/11 had its share of good moments. I think that Michael Moore is a brilliant filmmaker whose work can be enjoyed regardless of one’s politics. (I also think that Leni Riefenstahl’s films are genius despite the fact that they are Nazi propaganda.)
While I enjoyed the film I had a number of problems with it. These problems may seem like quibbling on my part but I do see these things as a cause for concern. The film has Patton show Malone an alternative universe where Lincoln had followed Malone in thinking that violence never solves anything and did not fight the Civil War. Malone finds that his family has moved to the South and that he is now a major slaveholder. A very funny bit without any question. The problem is that Patton came from a Confederate family. His grandfather fought under Robert E. Lee. Of all the people that the film could have picked to make their point, Patton might not have been the best choice. Patton also takes Malone to the Munich conference of 1938 where Neville Chamberlin shines the shoes of Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo. It was great having Hitler strumming a guitar and singing a peace song, but, and maybe this is me being the nitpicky historian, it bothered me that Tojo was put in Munich. Japan had nothing to do with Munich.
These small historical bloopers could be laughed off if it were not for the fact that it is part of a larger assault on academia. The film clearly has a gripe with academics. Malone even gets to visit a peace studies course at Columbia University where the professors break out into their hippy selves and sing about how it is 1968. While I have my problems with academic culture, I am not comfortable with this sort of head-on attack, mainly because I suspect that what lies behind it is not just a rejection of the academic culture as it exists at present but also a rejection of academia of any sort. Whatever problems I may have with academic culture as it exists at present I am a believer in the academic process. Universities, even the radical leftist parts, have an important role to play in our society. I am not certain, though, that the filmmakers share my concern. If they did they would have bothered to get their history right.
As an academic on the right side of the political spectrum, I believe that radical changes need to be made to the university system. I think that the hard-left culture that dominates campuses is a problem. That being said, I do not think that the solution is for a right-wing takeover. I fear that too many on the right are not just against liberal academics but would seek to destroy all academia.
American Carol bills itself as the first conservative film to come out of mainstream Hollywood and is devoted to sticking it to the liberal establishment. (I would point to Team America: World Police as a film that preceded it.) It is a send-up to Charles Dickens’ Christmas Carol and spoofs Michael Moore. It features an overweight radical leftist documentary filmmaker in a Michigan State baseball cap named Michael Malone in the role of Ebenezer Scrooge. Malone despises all things American, including his tall good-looking all all-American nephew, who is serving in the Navy. He hates America so much that he wishes to abolish the Fourth of July. The night before he is to speak at an abolish the Fourth of July rally, Malone is visited by the spirits of John F. Kennedy, George S. Patton, and George Washington, who teach him the true meaning of patriotism.
I laughed my heart out through the film’s eighty-plus minutes and would have loved to have gotten more. I am not sure what was my favorite bit; a group of black slaves breaking out into hava nagilah while picking cotton or the shootout with ACLU zombies out to deliver injunctions to make it impossible to check the bags of potential terrorists and destroy the Ten Commandments. (This still does not compare to season four of Twenty-Four when the villain, upon finding out that one of his people had been captured, calls a group named Amnesty Global to inform them that an innocent man was being illegally held by CTU. A lawyer from Amnesty Global then shows up with a court order, banning CTU from questioning the person they hold. Fortunately, Jack Bauer ignores this and proceeds to break the guy’s fingers one by one until he gives over the information necessary to save the day and stop a nuclear device from wiping out Los Angeles.)
I feel that I can recommend this film to everyone across the political spectrum, without any sense of guilt, as a hands-down brilliant piece of political satire. I am not saying this simply because I agree with the film’s politics. I enjoyed watching Michael Moore’s films too. Bowling for Columbine was absolutely hilarious and even Fahrenheit 9/11 had its share of good moments. I think that Michael Moore is a brilliant filmmaker whose work can be enjoyed regardless of one’s politics. (I also think that Leni Riefenstahl’s films are genius despite the fact that they are Nazi propaganda.)
While I enjoyed the film I had a number of problems with it. These problems may seem like quibbling on my part but I do see these things as a cause for concern. The film has Patton show Malone an alternative universe where Lincoln had followed Malone in thinking that violence never solves anything and did not fight the Civil War. Malone finds that his family has moved to the South and that he is now a major slaveholder. A very funny bit without any question. The problem is that Patton came from a Confederate family. His grandfather fought under Robert E. Lee. Of all the people that the film could have picked to make their point, Patton might not have been the best choice. Patton also takes Malone to the Munich conference of 1938 where Neville Chamberlin shines the shoes of Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo. It was great having Hitler strumming a guitar and singing a peace song, but, and maybe this is me being the nitpicky historian, it bothered me that Tojo was put in Munich. Japan had nothing to do with Munich.
These small historical bloopers could be laughed off if it were not for the fact that it is part of a larger assault on academia. The film clearly has a gripe with academics. Malone even gets to visit a peace studies course at Columbia University where the professors break out into their hippy selves and sing about how it is 1968. While I have my problems with academic culture, I am not comfortable with this sort of head-on attack, mainly because I suspect that what lies behind it is not just a rejection of the academic culture as it exists at present but also a rejection of academia of any sort. Whatever problems I may have with academic culture as it exists at present I am a believer in the academic process. Universities, even the radical leftist parts, have an important role to play in our society. I am not certain, though, that the filmmakers share my concern. If they did they would have bothered to get their history right.
As an academic on the right side of the political spectrum, I believe that radical changes need to be made to the university system. I think that the hard-left culture that dominates campuses is a problem. That being said, I do not think that the solution is for a right-wing takeover. I fear that too many on the right are not just against liberal academics but would seek to destroy all academia.
Friday, October 3, 2008
On the Comforts of Reading Isaac Asimov
I spent this past Rosh Hashana with a family in the community here in Columbus. Right before the holiday began I was wandering through their living room and I came across an Isaac Asimov novel. I picked it up and started reading simply to see what it was about and immediately fell entranced into it. Despite the fact that I had brought other books with me I ended up abandoning those books and reading the Asimov novel instead. I would compare reading Asimov to drinking a twelve dollar bottle of Moscato d’Asti. It might not be high class but it also is not some cheap junk; it requires a certain level of sophistication to appreciate, but not too much so that it ceases to be fun.
There is a simplicity to Asimov that makes him such a readable writer. While Asimov was a science fiction writer, who usually wrote about societies far across the galaxy and far into the future, he kept his work grounded in our world. One never doubts that Asimov’s characters, despite the exotic worlds they live in, are anything but twentieth-century humans. This may make for bad science writing but it is great science fiction. Practically any other writer trying to do this would end up sounding drab and preachy. It is Asimov’s genius that he was able to pull it off. As with J. K. Rowling and Stephenie Meyer, the question that you have to ask with Asimov is not whether this is good writing in any technical sense. The question that you have to ask is, granted that this is not what is usually understood as good writing, why does it still hold together and work despite its obvious flaws.
There is a certain comfort in being able to curl up on a couch and escape into Asimov’s universe. One knows that the world that he is writing about is really our world and his version of our world has very clear-cut heroes and villains and a clear message as to how to solve the issues of our day. There are the heroic scientist characters, usually professional scientists but sometimes just lay individuals who think along the lines of the scientific method. They fight to maintain and advance the flame of reason against the vast hordes of ignorance and superstition, aided and abetted if not actually caused by the forces of religion. Reading Asimov, one can lie back, just for a moment, and actually believe that the world was really that simple. This is simply a secular version of the comforting certitude of religion. Religion offers a set answers to the world that are comfortable, in large part, because they are direct and simple. Most people, I think, want some set of simple answers to make themselves comfortable; it does not really matter if it is a religious or secular set of answers.
While Asimov might not be fitting reading for Rosh Hashana this Asimov novel, Nightfall,[1] ironically enough did sort of fit the holiday spirit. Nightfall is about the apocalyptic end of a world. It is about a planet, Kalgash, that has six suns. The people on this planet have no experience dealing with darkness and are particularly unsuited for it; being exposed to darkness for even a few minutes is enough to cause nervous breakdowns and even permanent insanity. Every 2049 years, though, the planet, due to a complex alignment of the celestial spheres, undergoes a worldwide blackout. This blackout is about to happen. Over the course of a day everyone on this planet will undergo several hours of darkness. By the end, the entire civilization will be destroyed as most of the population goes insane and riots, burning down entire cities just to create some light. The essential conflict of the book is the race to prepare for this end, to be in a position to pick up the pieces and rebuild a new civilization once everything has been destroyed. On one side is a scientific community centered around Saro University. On the other side is a religious cult, the Apostles of the Flame. The scientists want to save the knowledge of their civilization so that the world does not completely fall into a dark age. The Apostles of the Flame see the coming blackout as the fulfillment of the prophecies told in their book of Revelations, a book written in the aftermath of the last blackout. They believe that the blackout is a punishment from the gods upon the sinners of the world. Once the world is “cleansed” they hope to be able to establish a new godly civilization, complete with restrictions on what sort of bathing suits women will be allowed to wear.
Early in the book one is tempted to think that maybe the scientists and the religious people are really not so far apart, that they really want the same things and that they are going to be able to work together. In other words, one almost thinks that Asimov, for once, got it right and created a world in which the lines between religion and science are blurry and it is not simply a matter of heroic scientists battling fanatical religion. Asimov disabuses us of this notion soon enough. The religious characters are as bad as we might have suspected them to be.
Asimov was an example of a secularist who crafted his worldview with the help of the Whig historical narrative and Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in particular. (See here) Asimov’s Foundation series (his best work and what people will, hopefully, remember him for) is a science fiction retelling of Decline and Fall. Nightfall is also premised around Gibbon’s version of the end of the Roman Empire and the coming of the Middle Ages. A golden age of civilization is about to end and everything is going to fall to the forces of barbarism and religion. It is only a question of allowing some flicker of knowledge to survive so that one day the flame of progress can be reignited.
My world would be a lot simpler if it was all God, his Torah, and the Jewish people, if my Rosh Hashana could be solely about going through the long prayer services, getting right with God, and doing all the fun Jewish customs, such as eating apples dipped in honey for a sweet new year. But my world also includes Asimov, his science fiction and his secularism. Not having Isaac Asimov would make things easier and a lot more comfortable and sometimes I need to curl up with a book that gives me that world. I choose, though, to live in my life in a complex world, with its God, Day of Judgment and its Asimov.
[1] I should point out that this novel was co-authored by Robert Silverberg, who I assume did most of the actual writing. This novel is based, though, on an earlier Asimov short story and is written in a very Asimov fashion. So even if Silverberg was the real author he still was imitating Asimov and probably doing it, at the very least, with Asimov’s help.
There is a simplicity to Asimov that makes him such a readable writer. While Asimov was a science fiction writer, who usually wrote about societies far across the galaxy and far into the future, he kept his work grounded in our world. One never doubts that Asimov’s characters, despite the exotic worlds they live in, are anything but twentieth-century humans. This may make for bad science writing but it is great science fiction. Practically any other writer trying to do this would end up sounding drab and preachy. It is Asimov’s genius that he was able to pull it off. As with J. K. Rowling and Stephenie Meyer, the question that you have to ask with Asimov is not whether this is good writing in any technical sense. The question that you have to ask is, granted that this is not what is usually understood as good writing, why does it still hold together and work despite its obvious flaws.
There is a certain comfort in being able to curl up on a couch and escape into Asimov’s universe. One knows that the world that he is writing about is really our world and his version of our world has very clear-cut heroes and villains and a clear message as to how to solve the issues of our day. There are the heroic scientist characters, usually professional scientists but sometimes just lay individuals who think along the lines of the scientific method. They fight to maintain and advance the flame of reason against the vast hordes of ignorance and superstition, aided and abetted if not actually caused by the forces of religion. Reading Asimov, one can lie back, just for a moment, and actually believe that the world was really that simple. This is simply a secular version of the comforting certitude of religion. Religion offers a set answers to the world that are comfortable, in large part, because they are direct and simple. Most people, I think, want some set of simple answers to make themselves comfortable; it does not really matter if it is a religious or secular set of answers.
While Asimov might not be fitting reading for Rosh Hashana this Asimov novel, Nightfall,[1] ironically enough did sort of fit the holiday spirit. Nightfall is about the apocalyptic end of a world. It is about a planet, Kalgash, that has six suns. The people on this planet have no experience dealing with darkness and are particularly unsuited for it; being exposed to darkness for even a few minutes is enough to cause nervous breakdowns and even permanent insanity. Every 2049 years, though, the planet, due to a complex alignment of the celestial spheres, undergoes a worldwide blackout. This blackout is about to happen. Over the course of a day everyone on this planet will undergo several hours of darkness. By the end, the entire civilization will be destroyed as most of the population goes insane and riots, burning down entire cities just to create some light. The essential conflict of the book is the race to prepare for this end, to be in a position to pick up the pieces and rebuild a new civilization once everything has been destroyed. On one side is a scientific community centered around Saro University. On the other side is a religious cult, the Apostles of the Flame. The scientists want to save the knowledge of their civilization so that the world does not completely fall into a dark age. The Apostles of the Flame see the coming blackout as the fulfillment of the prophecies told in their book of Revelations, a book written in the aftermath of the last blackout. They believe that the blackout is a punishment from the gods upon the sinners of the world. Once the world is “cleansed” they hope to be able to establish a new godly civilization, complete with restrictions on what sort of bathing suits women will be allowed to wear.
Early in the book one is tempted to think that maybe the scientists and the religious people are really not so far apart, that they really want the same things and that they are going to be able to work together. In other words, one almost thinks that Asimov, for once, got it right and created a world in which the lines between religion and science are blurry and it is not simply a matter of heroic scientists battling fanatical religion. Asimov disabuses us of this notion soon enough. The religious characters are as bad as we might have suspected them to be.
Asimov was an example of a secularist who crafted his worldview with the help of the Whig historical narrative and Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in particular. (See here) Asimov’s Foundation series (his best work and what people will, hopefully, remember him for) is a science fiction retelling of Decline and Fall. Nightfall is also premised around Gibbon’s version of the end of the Roman Empire and the coming of the Middle Ages. A golden age of civilization is about to end and everything is going to fall to the forces of barbarism and religion. It is only a question of allowing some flicker of knowledge to survive so that one day the flame of progress can be reignited.
My world would be a lot simpler if it was all God, his Torah, and the Jewish people, if my Rosh Hashana could be solely about going through the long prayer services, getting right with God, and doing all the fun Jewish customs, such as eating apples dipped in honey for a sweet new year. But my world also includes Asimov, his science fiction and his secularism. Not having Isaac Asimov would make things easier and a lot more comfortable and sometimes I need to curl up with a book that gives me that world. I choose, though, to live in my life in a complex world, with its God, Day of Judgment and its Asimov.
[1] I should point out that this novel was co-authored by Robert Silverberg, who I assume did most of the actual writing. This novel is based, though, on an earlier Asimov short story and is written in a very Asimov fashion. So even if Silverberg was the real author he still was imitating Asimov and probably doing it, at the very least, with Asimov’s help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)