Several times in this blog, I have taken on Spengler's writings as inspiration for my own. David P Goldman, a religious American Jew writing under the pseudonym Spengler for Asia Times Online, recently lifted his veil after a decade of closeted commentary.
For all his controversial, incendiary and often conceited opinions, it is not surprising he chose to remain anonymous. As a result, I've been criticized for springboarding off his work while leaving unchallenged his opinionated world view. Most recently, my post on Spengler's take on American Idol has ruffled some feathers and deserves better exposition.
====
This post is dedicated to conveying why I have not directly challenged Spengler's presuppositions about American Idol. In short, it is beyond my ability to do so. What I have attempted, however, is to challenge his conclusions in the only way that I am capable, namely on the basis of intuition.
I have never read anyone with whom who I agree and disagree so strongly before, often at the same time. Perhaps it is this paradox that gives Spengler his allure, and why I read his columns extensively. He is not the typical, simple-minded ideologue. Rare among his peers, especially in right-wing opinion these days, Spengler has developed a rather unique, cohesive, and cultish system of thought in which his opinions are bred.
Conceptually, I find that refreshing, compelling, and inspirational, even if I don't consider myself adherent to his world view.
I once read that one measure of a person's intelligence is the ability to hold two contradictory thoughts in their mind at the same time. I don't remember who said that, nevertheless I have taken those words as a vow, a challenge with which to discover my own sense of integrity and intellectual congruity. I am a long, long way from that journey's end but frankly, I know of no other way to go about it.
What began as a simple plea for support from my friend Steve, turned into an expository essay on the world that is Spengler's. While I understand Spengler on an intuitive level, I lack the ability to efficiently verbalize what Steve has done here. What would have taken me months to compose, Steve completed in the span of an hour or two without batting an eye. Thanks man!
For those interested, here is Spengler's world as channeled by Steve, one who has ruminated through his writing for years uncounted. Though it may not seem so at first, Steve will steer his narrative back to American Idol ere the end to great effect.
=====
So this is just me, chiming in on Spengler and what he has to say about American Idol. I want to do this because I think Spengler is worth it, and that the things that make him worth understanding are precisely the things that make him difficult to understand, particularly when you take his work column by column, isolated utterance by isolated utterance. Spengler is one of the few truly systematic thinkers writing about politics and culture for an audience of layman today. It is difficult to explicate his work because it is one integrated system. It's hard to know where to begin.
One good starting point is with his discussions of paganism. Paganism is a central concept in understanding his critique of Western modernity and of the fraught history of Abrahamic monotheism. He ascribes a deep significance to the worship of a totally abstract, transcendent deity, and the otherworldly religiosity that attends it. Christian otherworldliness devalued the actual world. To become a Christian meant being severed from your old life and old self, to cut your roots and enter unto a new life. Life in the Christian community meant experiencing death, and become a new person.
By contrast, paganism elevated the self image of human beings into the order of the cosmos. The pagan god was an expression of narcissism, with every people, every ethnicity having its own pantheon of gods. The Abrahamic god was totally transcendent and could not be represented by images; such a god cannot be represented by physical, external reality but can be felt as an internal presence. Where the pagan god was a narcissistic reflection of the self, the Abrahamic god was an absolute other.
So according to Spengler, the conversion of the West to Christianity was incomplete; the latent paganism of the barbarian peoples of Europe never completely disappeared. Much of the history of the west can be understood as a consequence of this incomplete conversion. One must ask whether a complete conversion could ever occur. Christianity is an extremely difficult religion to follow, for it asks us to believe, to really and sincerely believe, that 2000 so years ago, God, the lord and omnipotent master of the universe, became a lowly carpenter in ancient Palestine who was willingly crucified out of love for humanity. One who believes must place all of his faith in the otherworldly love of God, and of eternal life. Naturally, this is an impossibly high standard.
What happened to Europe was that it found it could not believe in eternal love and salvation, and so looked instead to a modern form of idolatry, that is, ethnic nationalism. The idea that one's culture and way of life will continue long after one dies is the only form of immortality that modern man believes in. With the collapse of religious belief, man has looked to new gods.
Now, on to a discussion of Spengler's ideas about music. For Spengler, the glories of Western culture are a direct result of Christian spirituality. In particular, he sees the soaring, transcendent achievements of Western classical music from Bach through Beethoven as being the highest expression of Christian spirituality. The total transcendence of the Abrahamic god was an impetus to Western composers to express the inexpressible reality of God's sublime being. In this, I am somewhat inclined to agree with him. Anyone familiar with the history of Western classical music knows how bound up with sacred music and the musical setting of liturgical texts that history has been.
Now what does all of this have to do with American Idol? I am sorry to be roundabout about things. American Idol. Idol, idolatry. I can see why the show would be such a tempting target for him. I wanted to give you some idea of the complexity of Spengler's thought, and of how it all hangs together. I think Spengler views popular culture as another expression of paganism. He reiterates this idea over and over again, that people would rather listen to music produced by people much like themselves and that doesn't force them to stretch themselves. For Spengler, the collapse of Christian religiosity was a cultural catastrophe, because with it went the belief that people needed to look beyond themselves for a standard of value. For modern man, the self is the measure of all things. They no longer even aspire to learn about and equal what is great. Not only that, but today people increasingly feel only confusion and resentment towards the great achievements of the past. In other words, Spengler sees the egalitarian, populist strains in American culture, its more democratic aspects, as being deeply destructive, even decadent in many ways, and that much of this because, at its base, is resentment of whatever makes us feel bad about ourselves. Feeling bad about ourselves is, of course, the beginning of aspiration.
Now, do you see why Spengler detests American Idol, and why I do not have the facility to challenge him?
For all his controversial, incendiary and often conceited opinions, it is not surprising he chose to remain anonymous. As a result, I've been criticized for springboarding off his work while leaving unchallenged his opinionated world view. Most recently, my post on Spengler's take on American Idol has ruffled some feathers and deserves better exposition.
====
This post is dedicated to conveying why I have not directly challenged Spengler's presuppositions about American Idol. In short, it is beyond my ability to do so. What I have attempted, however, is to challenge his conclusions in the only way that I am capable, namely on the basis of intuition.
I have never read anyone with whom who I agree and disagree so strongly before, often at the same time. Perhaps it is this paradox that gives Spengler his allure, and why I read his columns extensively. He is not the typical, simple-minded ideologue. Rare among his peers, especially in right-wing opinion these days, Spengler has developed a rather unique, cohesive, and cultish system of thought in which his opinions are bred.
Conceptually, I find that refreshing, compelling, and inspirational, even if I don't consider myself adherent to his world view.
I once read that one measure of a person's intelligence is the ability to hold two contradictory thoughts in their mind at the same time. I don't remember who said that, nevertheless I have taken those words as a vow, a challenge with which to discover my own sense of integrity and intellectual congruity. I am a long, long way from that journey's end but frankly, I know of no other way to go about it.
What began as a simple plea for support from my friend Steve, turned into an expository essay on the world that is Spengler's. While I understand Spengler on an intuitive level, I lack the ability to efficiently verbalize what Steve has done here. What would have taken me months to compose, Steve completed in the span of an hour or two without batting an eye. Thanks man!
For those interested, here is Spengler's world as channeled by Steve, one who has ruminated through his writing for years uncounted. Though it may not seem so at first, Steve will steer his narrative back to American Idol ere the end to great effect.
=====
So this is just me, chiming in on Spengler and what he has to say about American Idol. I want to do this because I think Spengler is worth it, and that the things that make him worth understanding are precisely the things that make him difficult to understand, particularly when you take his work column by column, isolated utterance by isolated utterance. Spengler is one of the few truly systematic thinkers writing about politics and culture for an audience of layman today. It is difficult to explicate his work because it is one integrated system. It's hard to know where to begin.
One good starting point is with his discussions of paganism. Paganism is a central concept in understanding his critique of Western modernity and of the fraught history of Abrahamic monotheism. He ascribes a deep significance to the worship of a totally abstract, transcendent deity, and the otherworldly religiosity that attends it. Christian otherworldliness devalued the actual world. To become a Christian meant being severed from your old life and old self, to cut your roots and enter unto a new life. Life in the Christian community meant experiencing death, and become a new person.
By contrast, paganism elevated the self image of human beings into the order of the cosmos. The pagan god was an expression of narcissism, with every people, every ethnicity having its own pantheon of gods. The Abrahamic god was totally transcendent and could not be represented by images; such a god cannot be represented by physical, external reality but can be felt as an internal presence. Where the pagan god was a narcissistic reflection of the self, the Abrahamic god was an absolute other.
So according to Spengler, the conversion of the West to Christianity was incomplete; the latent paganism of the barbarian peoples of Europe never completely disappeared. Much of the history of the west can be understood as a consequence of this incomplete conversion. One must ask whether a complete conversion could ever occur. Christianity is an extremely difficult religion to follow, for it asks us to believe, to really and sincerely believe, that 2000 so years ago, God, the lord and omnipotent master of the universe, became a lowly carpenter in ancient Palestine who was willingly crucified out of love for humanity. One who believes must place all of his faith in the otherworldly love of God, and of eternal life. Naturally, this is an impossibly high standard.
What happened to Europe was that it found it could not believe in eternal love and salvation, and so looked instead to a modern form of idolatry, that is, ethnic nationalism. The idea that one's culture and way of life will continue long after one dies is the only form of immortality that modern man believes in. With the collapse of religious belief, man has looked to new gods.
Now, on to a discussion of Spengler's ideas about music. For Spengler, the glories of Western culture are a direct result of Christian spirituality. In particular, he sees the soaring, transcendent achievements of Western classical music from Bach through Beethoven as being the highest expression of Christian spirituality. The total transcendence of the Abrahamic god was an impetus to Western composers to express the inexpressible reality of God's sublime being. In this, I am somewhat inclined to agree with him. Anyone familiar with the history of Western classical music knows how bound up with sacred music and the musical setting of liturgical texts that history has been.
Now what does all of this have to do with American Idol? I am sorry to be roundabout about things. American Idol. Idol, idolatry. I can see why the show would be such a tempting target for him. I wanted to give you some idea of the complexity of Spengler's thought, and of how it all hangs together. I think Spengler views popular culture as another expression of paganism. He reiterates this idea over and over again, that people would rather listen to music produced by people much like themselves and that doesn't force them to stretch themselves. For Spengler, the collapse of Christian religiosity was a cultural catastrophe, because with it went the belief that people needed to look beyond themselves for a standard of value. For modern man, the self is the measure of all things. They no longer even aspire to learn about and equal what is great. Not only that, but today people increasingly feel only confusion and resentment towards the great achievements of the past. In other words, Spengler sees the egalitarian, populist strains in American culture, its more democratic aspects, as being deeply destructive, even decadent in many ways, and that much of this because, at its base, is resentment of whatever makes us feel bad about ourselves. Feeling bad about ourselves is, of course, the beginning of aspiration.
Now, do you see why Spengler detests American Idol, and why I do not have the facility to challenge him?
Logging you in...
Gabriel Syme · 825 weeks ago
The realization that celebrities and the elite are not actually different from the rest of us was revealed in a conversation attributed to Ernest Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald.
"The rich are different from you and me."
"Yes, they have more money."
Unfortunately, most Americans feel differently. When Lisa Simpson quoted the first part of the quip, Marge responded with, "Yes, they're better."
milesian 35p · 825 weeks ago
I venture to opine that if Americans do worship celebrities, it is not the person itself they worship but their fantasy characters on-screen. I myself have trouble separating Patrick Stewart from Captain Picard. Though when it comes to celebrities in real life, we love it when they fall to our lowly level, preferably even lower. It is probably a dirty little secret that we resent celebrities' fame and fortune even as we bow down in deference.
Tabloid and gossip media do not exist for no reason; markets exist because the people demand it. As such I would not so easily write off tabloid culture. Even if it doesn't influence 100% of all Americans, it is a firm part of our mainstream sensibility.
We want to see our celebrities fail, such that it validates our own failures. In my view, American Idol is popular less because it validates mediocrity, but more because people like the idea of failure and getting bashed by judges, a process in which the audience itself plays a part. Who doesn't want the power of Donald Trump as he lays down the law on his incompetent apprentices?
However, even if we drag a steroid-ridden athlete through the mud, we still have the desire to see that person honored for his achievements. This makes perfect sense to me, as we want second chances for our imperfect selves, the hope that responsibility and consequences can be tossed into the wind and forgotten. This can be likened to, of course, a god-like authority, an act of forgiveness through repentance. Scary thought.. perhaps Spengler isn't far off the mark after all -_-
In any case, simple celebrity fame is no substitute for royalty and in my eyes, neither are worthy as a spiritual pillar for modern man. The idea that they might actually serve such a function goes to show just how hollow mainstream culture has become.
Fortunately, I'm not vain enough to believe I have any answers, but I do know that finding them begins with inquiry. This is why I read Spengler. Probably, he believes that celebrity culture, and perhaps even royalty, are symptoms of a problem subsumed under what Spengler calls ethnic nationalism (see Steve's exposition above). Giving him the benefit of the doubt, this is something that probably afflicts Americans more than any other people. As I argued in my American Idol post, American culture had become the gold standard in the world today. Our best brands and values are exported and beloved worldwide. As such, why would Americans look beyond ourselves to a transcendent god when the material world already validates our supremacy? We ARE the standard, after all.
This is, of course, a dangerous delusion, one in which we can do no wrong because we have defined the right. The neocons have pretty much run our country on this belief for some time, the consequences of which are still multiplying.
This delusion is, as Spengler argues, an extension of pagan yearnings in a nation of fallen Christians. As he questioned regarding The Da Vinci Code's success a few years back, 'why should an American novel depicting Christianity as a hoax command such a readership while Christian faith is resurgent?"
Dave C · 825 weeks ago
There are definitely two schools of thought when it comes to values. There are those that favor a strong, singular vision pushed to its natural conclusion (monolithic). This naturally favors the exceptional. This is where Spengler clearly comes from, and it has its merits. Of course, there is an inherent exclusionary quality to this, and its disenfranchising. That's where the other set of values, that encourages accessibility comes in. The great virtue of Punk when it emerged was that it told an entire generation that "you can start a band too." It didn't matter that you never played before, you can do this. There's value in that as well.
My personal belief is in a pluralistic culture that allows you to persue whatever your tastes may be. Both avenues have values and limitations, and its worth encouraging both. To do great work in either model doesn't require fame and fortune, just enough of an audience to sustain it. I think its simple human nature to lean one way or the other. I think largely we have succeeded in the West to be a pluralistic society, and have hit a flexible equilibrium of high and low culture, of a "pagan" and "christian" sensibility.
I simply think its unavoidable fact that when art is in a pluralistic society, those whose passions align with Spenglers will find the exclusionary qualities of their art will lead to their own exclusion from the mainstream. Its a historic role reversal for the connoisseur to be the ones disenfranchised. I'm sympathetic to his point of view, but I can't help but think that's how it ought to be.
milesian 35p · 825 weeks ago
But what are the consequences of this reality on culture? Just because something has value doesn't mean it can't be bad. Reality is, the good does not necessarily bring good, nor the bad bring bad. As Spengler has put it in the past, "the beautiful is not the good."
This is the larger question that informs Spengler's commentary and for me, it is really where his argument starts to convince. This is also the same question I tried steering you toward in our previous discussion. If you check out the above column, you will find that Spengler does not view high/low culture as B/W as you think him. And when he does, you have to consciously resist the snooty connoisseur-ness and boil it down to essentials.
With that in mind, three questions I have for you:
1) You say "pluralistic culture allows you to pursue whatever your tastes may be." How do you think those tastes are determined? I know you will say it's through the individual and the individual only, but bear in mind there can be no individual without society. After all, the individual is a person separate from other persons, such that there is no self without an other.
2) I'm curious, what convinces you that we have hit a "flexible equilibrium of high and low culture," boorish as those labels are?
3) You spoke of mutual disenfranchisement between connoisseurs of "high" and "low culture." I can't agree more, and so I ask : which side of the equation do you think has more consequence? That the high cannot see the low, or the low cannot see the high? Please don't spin this question into whose-fault-it-was, for it is neither's.
Perhaps this NY Times piece can help inspire some answers: Tight Times Loosen Creativity
Dave C · 824 weeks ago
Just a couple clarifications I want to make. Sure, things of value can certainly be bad. I'd never disagree with that. Its just my approach to questions is to proactively attempt to view both the value and the cost, the aptitudes and limitations of either side. Personally, it helps me to see the whole and lead me to not accept all conflicts as necessary. In the case of high and low culture, I think they simply do different things and any attempt to disparage one or the other usually has more to do with a psychological need to be "right" than it does with an inherent contradiction.
Now to your specific questions:
1) How are tastes determined? I wouldn't say the individual and individual only. Taste, like all abstract things, are FILTERED THROUGH the individual. Taste is obviously susceptible to influence, societal pressure, family pressure, exposure to different things, personal temperament, aptitude, and a million other things. Taste is determined by many factors, among them are personal factors that no broad approach can really account for.
Where taste comes from is too specific a question to project over an entirety of a culture with any degree of accuracy. Honestly, I think its an irrelevant question unless you are interested in shaping a culture's temperament. I have no interest in doing it, and heavily doubt it can be done in any sustainable way.
I don't think anyone has done it yet. American Idol, marketing, and everything else spends far more time chasing trends and piggybacking off what's proven to be popular than it does trying to create movements. At its best, a creative endeavor geared to a wide audience can strike the right chord tapping into a real sentiment. At its worst it is obvious and pandering and ultimately irrelevant. Either way, its subservient to something out of its control.
To be clear, again, I'm not saying people and culture are immune to influence. I'm saying it will only validate and accept influence from something that has a basic validity with influences that are already present.
2) What convinces me we have a flexible equilibrium of high and low culture? First, I apologize for such a pretentious sounding statement, ha. But I think my answer to 1 leads into this. I don't want this to sound like circular logic, but I think whatever is being done is the true snapshot of the time. I forget what its called, but there is a theological theory that says whatever we find in nature is the true nature of God, since nature is his creation. I think that's the case here, whatever we find in culture is the true culture of the people creating it. The reason I think the modern West has reached that place is because its so decentralized. No one place is dictating the culture. That's not to say there are no big forces within culture, but they are big at the discretion of the people showing up to the shows and buying the records and watching the videos.
3) Which disenfranchisement has more consequence. I really not sure I understand what you mean. Consequence on what, exactly? The culture/society? I don't really think they have any great consequence. There will always be a psychological/spiritual need for expression. But there will also always be a psychological/spiritual need to distinguish yourselves from others.
I really don't see a consequence beyond people squarely in the low culture calling the high culture group snobs, and the high calling the low shallow. Don't see a way out of that. Like I said before, I think its doing little more than satisfying a psychological need to be "right."
milesian 35p · 824 weeks ago
Spengler, at least in his American Idol column, does not so much disparage low culture vis-a-vis high culture. Rather, he warns of possible consequences for a society in which low culture triumphs over high.
I know you believe there aren't any consequences other than pointless partisan pissing matches. I sure hope you're right, but I am in doubt.
You accuse Spengler of focusing too much on the cost, rather than acknowledge the value of an accessible culture. However, Spengler can level the same charge against you, namely focusing too much on value than the cost. Both, in my view, have a point.
Let's start with your viewpoint. You see very clearly, and I'm in full agreement with you. A culture's temperament cannot be manufactured, but instead created by the aggregate sum of individual choices. Markets do not shape culture, but vice versa.
As you also rightly observe, things like American Idol and marketing merely "chase trends" and "piggyback" off past successes. Individual choices aggregate together to define these trends and successes, the "real sentiments" that make blockbusters, and show likes American Idol.
I thank you for documenting these truisms because you've helped me make my point, namely that individual choices create markets. As such, don't market trends in turn say something about the things society value?
After all, the market does not define culture; it merely takes a snapshot. This is another point that you made in your comment (point #2).
If we can agree on this, then you cannot so easily dismiss Spengler's commentary as mere partisan piss-off. American Idol, unarguably, is a persistently high-ratings show that rewards quasi-amateur talents, that which some justifiably label mediocre. Doesn't that suggest something about what Americans value, even if it's "just entertainment?" How many more spin-offs and wanna-bes must we witness to satiate this market trend?
More poignantly, what does this trend say about personal aspirations? This is the question that informs Spengler's commentary.
I know, you think "it's just entertainment," what's the big deal? Well, prostitution is a crime, but the fact that we consider that a crime says something about our values, doesn't it? It isn't like that in all places of the world, you know!
If you hold to your stated opinion that Americans today suffer a "good enough" culture , and that we are not "as hungry for greatness," doesn't that say something about the values that inform our individual choices? These choices, after all, are the very same that reward market success to shows like American Idol.
Dave, you make great points here, but after all this I'm still looking for the magic bullet that will deflate Spengler's warning of cultural decadence in the West. I wish for this as much as anyone, which is precisely why I play Spengler's advocate.
Dave C · 824 weeks ago
The only point I've really been trying to make is that I think a mainstream has been historically under-served. The notion of a time or a place when it was common to have a high level of devotion to something more noble than putting food on your plate and a roof over your head is fantasy. Popular culture may be a reflection of the society, and interpret the image however you’d like. That said, just be aware that it’s a fleeting image and a historically new phenomenon.
The fact that there is now a Chinese Idol that is wildly popular undercuts the entire assumption of Spengler's editorial. The fact that the Chinese government is clearly threatened by it re-affirms my position that Spengler's ideal represents a centralized, artificially promoted and controlled ideals. On the risk of starting another tangent, that may have more to do with need for status and control of the beurocrats censoring the show than the merits of the art itself. But that's neither here nor there. What is apparent is the programs existence damages the Chinese sanctioned and Spengler endorsed narrative of a sort of Chinese Exceptionalism and a Western Decline.
Ultimately, I agree and have argued that the popular culture is a reflection of a broad reaching sentiment. I’m not dismissive of that. As an artist myself who lived with a number of Parisian artists, its clear there is a cultural difference that informs our separate work. I have a need to justify my art, while they were free to make art as a means to itself. I have no doubt that has everything to do with our National identity. I just think any sense of urgent fear of a triumph or defeat of one form of expression over another should be tempered by a broader view of the overall dynamic that has gone on and will continue to go on forever.
milesian 35p · 824 weeks ago
We have been debating on a pretty basic level, much of which is already subsumed in Spengler's baseline perspective. It is worth pointing out that while his prescriptions may well prove folly, his diagnosis and insights can at times stand on their own. That certain characteristics of pop culture MAY create EXTERNALITIES detrimental to social development (my argument) should neither be dismissed (your argument) nor overstated (Spengler's argument). Only time, and ever more conjecture, can tell who is wrong.
THE END!!!!! Thanks for playing ^_^
One last point: I agree with you that Spengler promotes "centralized, artifically promoted and controlled ideals." This is typical of his world view, something that Steve superbly identified in a comment below. As I have nothing to add to that, I suggest you check it out if you haven't yet.
Oh and, you might enjoy this review of Spengler's American Idol column better than mine..
Dave C · 824 weeks ago
milesian 35p · 824 weeks ago
I have little faith, however, that people can do a good job of fully recognizing influences to which they subscribe. Myself included, of course.
Spengler thinks that if only we can all be good Christians, all our problems would be fixed!!
Dave C · 824 weeks ago
I'm sure you could come up with some theories about it displacing some other touchstone of community and shared experience, and pick your usual targets (religion, strong families, etc). I just don't know if any of it is fair. I guess it created 'celebrity' in a way it could never have been before. I guess it created an entertainment industry on a much larger scale. I guess it also could have lead to a new avenue of dialogue to previously disenfranchised masses. I really don't know. Its an interesting thought to pursue.
Drew · 825 weeks ago
milesian 35p · 825 weeks ago
Frankly, in my final analysis, I don't know that Christians are any less prone to pagan blasphemy. Were both the pagan and Abrahamic god somehow proven to be falsehoods, then both religions would be prey to the same delusion, namely that BOTH religions were in fact worshiping a false Other, made in the self-image of man.
(Besides, the Christian god is way more compatible with human sensibilities than some animal or something!)
Spengler's crowning of Christianity vis-a-vis the pitfalls of paganism, then, only hangs together on the HUGE assumption that the Abrahamic god exists. This is, of course, a question which can never be answered with any semblance of surety. Apparently, one requires just as much religious faith to believe in Spengler as it takes to believe in God.
Indeed, the faith needed for either enterprise is an "impossible standard" for me to bear; I just don't have what it takes!
stephen y · 825 weeks ago
1) Celebrity and royalty. Celebrity is sort of like royalty in a way, except minus the noblesse oblige. A king is not only someone famous, but someone invested with divine sovereignty. The difference between celebrity and royalty is similar to the difference between a tyrant and a father. A tyrant rules only by force, because he's stronger than you. A father is someone whom you not only listen to but are supposed to love. Royalty has, or is supposed to have, a halo of sorts, which is part of what gives it its legitimacy. Now with celebrity, half of the time we know, not only suspect, but know, that this person is famous without having merit. Significant difference.
2) Pluralism as "allowing people to pursue their own interests". I just want to say right now that I find Spengler's views deeply problematic in some ways. I don't want to present myself as an advocate for those views, like I'm arguing for them. I am not a commentator on Spengler. I consider myself only a reader, and I intend to be a good reader, in that I try hard to read it sensitively and seriously.
What I do want to emphasize about Spengler though is that he is a real thinker, and what I mean by this is that he articulates very rich ideas that have a life beyond what his intentions are. With a real thinker, you can take their ideas, internalize them, and use them to criticize the thinker. You can use their own ideas against them. That's the hallmark of a real thinker.
I think that Spengler finds the whole emphasis on self expression to be in itself a form of modern paganism. I don't think he would accept allowing people to express themselves as an inherent good at all.
3) Christianity and Western Civilization. Well, this is a huge topic, of course, but we should remember that the Church placed a heavy emphasis on reason as a method coequal with faith in acquiring knowledge about God and his works. I think that this rationalism was an important element, and that we should see modern scientific empiricist rationality as a sort of offspring of it.
4) Christian paganism. Here is a point were I think Spengler soft pedals, probably out of bad conscience. Modern religious fundamentalism is, in a sense, not really a religious phenomena at all. Like when certain religious conservatives say that America is a "Christian country". In other words, Christianity is good because it is part of our culture and so we need to protect it against terrorists/foreigners/atheists/etc. What this way of talking makes clear is that many ways, Christian fundamentalism is just cultural nationalism that has taken on a religious form. According to Spengler's definition, another form of paganism.
If you read his columns, I think Spengler basically knows this, but he's emotionally sympathetic to the right, and so he's not a very incisive critic on the subject. See his column, "This Almost Chosen, Almost Pregnant Land" where he writes:
"Idolatry attracts both wings of American politics: the right tends to confound the United States of America with the City of God, while the left makes an object of worship out of its utopian imagination."
So how does one keep Christianity from reverting into paganism? I suppose a good way to start is by reading more negative theology. God is really only defined negatively. He is a totally transcendent Other about whom you can say nothing.
stephen · 825 weeks ago
I want to begin this post with something that might now seem entirely related at first, which is the role of imitation in the arts, for instance, in music. Now the first thing to note is that direct, mechanical imitation is always a sign of artistic immaturity. A trumpet player tries to play exactly like Miles Davis. The truth is that no one is Miles Davis except Miles Davis. Times are different now; music is different, and the way that we hear music is different. A good player may imitate, but he does not imitate mechanically. Instead, he tries to get at the feeling that listening to a Miles Davis record gives him, and he tries to reach that feeling using terms and technique that his appropriate to him and to his time and place. If you play the a Miles Davis solo, note for note, you are very far from Miles, because what you've failed to do is to internalize the inner essence of Miles' music and to reproduce it in a new context. To be faithful to Miles, you must change what he did.
I think that Spengler falls into the same trap as the bad trumpet player. He sees the importance of Christianity for the development of Western Civilization, and he sees, quite correctly, the devastating effects of the decline of religious belief. Where he goes astray is in thinking, "Well, that means that everyone should go to Church and then everything will be alright." No. I think that's the wrong answer. That's imitating mechanically. There is no way of turning back the clock at this point, of erasing the effects of science on modernI consciousness. Instead, we need another way of reconnecting with the spiritual dimension, one that is faithful to the past but that is palatable to the modern consciousness.
Spengler's solution leads to a dead end. It's the same trap as the neoconservatives fall into. The neoconservatives see the problems that the collapse of religion has caused, and so they say, "well, that means we should encourage people to go back to church and reaffirm old values, or our civilization will go into decline!" Ahh, but there's a problem with this viewpoint. The problem is that it instrumentalizes religion, it speaks of faith and justifies faith from some point outside of faith. In effect it says, "we should all be good christians so that society will be orderly and people will be nice to each other." But this position is not authentic religious belief.
Spengler has written about neoconservatives, and he's been critical of this inauthenticity. But the funny thing is, that he falls into the same trap. See his writings on the financial crisis, which he basically attributes to the decline in the moral conditions of American life.
"But economics cannot find a remedy for the imagination of an evil heart, or a foolish one, for that matter. Ethics founded on religion are the precondition for long-term economic success, if for no other reason than economies depend on family formation. If the present economic crisis helps the West to reflect on its moral weakness, the cost well may be worth it."
He goes on in the magazine First Things to tout having more children as the solution to all of our economic problems. So let's get this straight. We should be good, god fearing Christians and have babies so that our economy will prosper? I think that any really religious person should find this kind of reasoning repellant. That's basically what he says. And he's doing exactly what he criticized the neoconservatives for doing. All of this is no help in articulating a system that people could actually believe in. In understands the need for faith while never being able to reach faith itself.
milesian 35p · 824 weeks ago
But more besides, you articulated perfectly here the point that was to follow up my very first post on this blog, one that I shamefully never wrote. Not only that, but you quoted from the very article that I was to critique!
Regarding Spengler's belief that the financial crisis is rooted in "the decline in the moral conditions of American life," I wrote then: Spengler elegantly lays out his prescription [for preventing the same financial crisis in the future] in said column, and I find myself in full agreement. Nonetheless, in Part 2 of this series I'd like to pick a bone with his prescription, namely that it cannot possibly work. Stayed tuned! It's coming whether you like it or not.
With this, it seems time is ripe to write the damn post whether I like it or not! Thanks for inspiring me to undertake this challenging task....... >_<
milesian 35p · 824 weeks ago
I just read this piece from the Wall Street Journal detailing China's very own version of American Idol. This just goes to show how wrong Spengler is about the Chinese having "less tolerance for fantasy" vis-a-vis Americans. Just hilarious:
Featuring amateur performers from all over the country, it drew a massive audience, with 400 million viewers tuning in for the 2005 season finale. That made it the most widely viewed TV program in China, surpassing even China Central Television’s annual Spring Festival Evening Gala.
While hugely popular, the shows also triggered hot debates. Some celebrated them for representing the victory of grassroots culture over official or elite culture, while others believed the show just encouraged young people to seek out overnight fame. Along with popularity came increased government scrutiny.
[New] conditions include the following: the competition may last no more than two months (about half the length of an American Idol season); episodes may only air after 10:30 pm; judges must be appropriately dressed and use proper language; competitors are not allowed to hug each other or shed tears on stage; and there must not be any fan groups cheering for contestants in the studio audience. Meanwhile, all forms of public voting for contestants, including mobile text messaging and online polls, will be prohibited, as reported by the Chinese-language media."
I must note, however, the significance of this show may be different for Americans and the Chinese. After all, their cultures and political economies are very very different, as hilariously evident in the new government restrictions outlined above. Maybe I can write a post on this someday.
MFackenthal · 824 weeks ago
You write:
Now, do you see why Spengler detests American Idol, and why I do not have the facility to challenge him?
In all honesty, no I cannot see why you do not think you have the facility to challenge him. I can see that you may not be able to speak with Spengler on a case by case, point by point, fact by fact basis ... but you say yourself that what you write with is your intuition and then you say you can't challenge him. I say that's crap. You're a highly educated man and someone I consider a friend. For both of those reasons you have every ability to challenge what someone else says - specifically if something in your gut/intuition tells you that something is wrong/off. How many things, great ideas were started with a hunch? I believe gravity was understood through a hunch - or so the story goes.
Secondly, I know that you didn't talk much about your specific religious views in this post and I don't want to get too deep into it. I just have one thought ...
You say:
I once read that one measure of a person's intelligence is the ability to hold two contradictory thoughts in their mind at the same time.
I think there is an aspect of spirituality that flows from this idea. For example, it is important for me to hold in my mind a God that is both wholly "other" and intimately connected to humanity.
Just some thoughts,
~Megan~
milesian 35p · 823 weeks ago
You bring an interesting wrinkle into the discussion! When it comes to religion, the foremost contradiction I recognize is that of faith itself. I touched on this in a previous comment, where I observed that you must first have faith in God's existence before you can believe in Spengler's world view. I suppose that's what it takes to really embrace a religious writer!
Though, as I have stated, my fundamental disagreement with Spengler does not void his insights. Personally I think there are more productive ways to present his shrewd social commentary.