As with previous episodes not every observation Schaeffer
makes is incorrect and at certain points his insight is appreciated – all the
more when considers the narratives at work some forty years later in our own
day. By comparison at times he can seem (relatively speaking) refreshing.
Schaeffer returns to some of the terms and themes that he has
evoked throughout the series – a society constructed on reason, its descent, a
line of despair, the realm of non-reason and the pessimism it engenders. This
decay results in a society with no fixed values or ability to find meaning
apart from the self.
In other capacities we've talked about Schaeffer's question
begging with regard to social construction and the very idea of a Christian
society – the driving narrative and force of his project. This is a flawed
notion and unbiblical and as such his narrative collapses. Additionally we need
to reiterate the fact that his system is not built upon exegesis or New
Testament doctrine but a quest for a philosophically unified theory by which a
culture and civilisation can be constructed. With only the most tenuous ties to
the Scripture, the project is in fact built upon (an almost equally dubious)
narrative concerning the Protestant Reformation and its 16th century
re-casting of Latin Christendom.
I say dubious because – first, the record regarding the
course of post-16th century European history does not match his
Calvinist-Evangelical Confessionalist narrative and second, because it's
actually much easier to point to the Reformation as the catalyst which
shattered the consensus of Latin Christendom and generated the crisis and
fragmentation which brought about the present state of affairs, the collapse of
Christendom that Schaeffer so laments. The Magisterial Reformation and
subsequent 16th and 17th century Wars of Religion
destroyed the consensus and fomented the birth of modern philosophy as men
sought to solve epistemological problems – as the medieval consensus had by
that time utterly collapsed. Of course to merely blame the Magisterial
Reformation as some Roman Catholics do is a reductionist exercise as the
consensus was in many ways breaking down a full two centuries before Luther
nailed his 95 Theses. As with all history, it's complicated and cannot be
easily (or honestly) presented in a neat package with sharp lines and crisp
dates.
Additionally as one who argues the
Confessionalist-Magisterial Reformation conception of Sola Scriptura is not a
true expression of Scripture Alone nor an actual submission to Biblical
Authority, the philosophical fragmentation so lamented by Schaeffer is (from a
Biblicist standpoint) cast in a very different light. While it's not viewed
positively it nevertheless serves a practical purpose in demonstrating the
ultimate failure of fallen man's epistemological capabilities and the inescapable
necessity for Scripture authority – not as a starting point or springboard for
constructing a unified theory or worldview but for the Church to interact with
and function within a fallen, hostile and even demonically driven age doomed to
die.
Schaeffer hones in on two values which developed in the
post-war period. These corrosive values appeared as a result of non-reason (as
he puts it) which shattered any kind of consensus. Men found their raison d'être
in personal peace by which Schaeffer
means a satisfaction and focus on the self and self-interest – a pursuit and
affirmation of a kind of hedonistic lifestyle.
In addition to personal peace, Schaeffer identifies affluence as one of the corrupting
values of the post-war generation, by which he means materialistic values and
an ethos of consumerism.
The post-war generation (the Boomers as we call them today) became
disgusted with the values of their parents and reacted to them – although I
think he once again utterly fails to examine the effects of World War II on
this generation's thinking in terms of values, meaning, US foreign policy and
domestic civil rights. Skirting these issues Schaffer wants to focus on the
1960's generation's rejection of self-focused, self-satisfied bourgeois values.
And I was rather pleased to note the fact that he admits their critique was
valid (again ignoring the larger spectrum of their critique) but that they had
no real solutions. As far as it goes, I agree with Schaeffer here.
He follows by rightly making a distinction between the
drug-hippie culture and its drug-taking as
ideology as opposed to the Free Speech Movement and the rise of the New
Left. These two movements are often confused in the popular mind and
undoubtedly there is some overlap as they hippie culture did influence a wider
spectrum in terms of drugs, fashion, music and so forth. The lines are not
clearly drawn but it would be a mistake to think that hippies were setting off
bombs. That's not quite accurate.
He rightly talks about the collapse of drug ideology into
mere popular usage of drugs and the fact that the violent elements of the New
Left (such as The Weather Underground we presume) went too far for many and the
ideologies as such collapsed. Of course it's also worth pointing out that The
Weather Underground was (internationally speaking) a very mild expression of
Leftist Extremism and even this was rejected by and large by the Far Left.
While the Birchers and McCarthyites of our day see communists around every
corner and under every rock – the truth is the movement has always been weak
and when reckoned in terms of international standards, American communism and
Leftism are frankly pretty tepid and certainly diluted.
Of course there was more to the 'collapse of the 1960's'
narrative than Schaeffer pursues. There were the political assassinations, the
fragmentation of the Left and the Democratic Party resulting in the election of
Nixon in 1968, the Manson murders and then of course the elephant in the room
that Schaeffer all but ignores – Vietnam.
There was an apathy that set in the 1970's that resulted from
all these things and much more. The corruption and scandal in politics, the
energy crisis, the crime wave, the collapse of urban centres, the changing
economics resulting from the rise of Germany and Japan, White flight and the shocking
revelations of government secrets and misdeeds. There is much more to the story
than Schaeffer's simplistic narrative will allow.
Instead, Schaeffer pursues the Right-wing line by focusing on
the evils of Communism and particularly in its European and Latin American
contexts. Arguing that non-reason (as he defines it) results in oppressive
government and that Marxist-Leninism always results in oppression he utilises the
likes of Solzhenitsyn and appeals to the Soviet crushing of the 1956 Hungarian
Revolution and the 1968 Prague Spring.
So much could be said at this point to counter this framing –
points about the end of WWII, the origins and course of the Cold War, the
nature and implementation of US power in Western Europe, Latin America, Africa
and Asia, US covert operations, proxy powers and proxy wars, not to mention the
absolutely murderous policy in Indochina.
I would never want to defend the patently evil Soviet system
but honesty will not allow for such a narrative to be put forward while the evils
of the American system are glossed over or ignored.
Schaeffer wantonly ignores the imperialistic nature of the
Western capitalist system and in particular as it was manifested in the
post-war American power structure and its geopolitics. He ignores the
dehumanising aspects of this system, how it commodifies people, destroys
families and communities as the market mercilessly pursues a policy of
exploitation, efficiency and the maximisation of profit. He ignores its
utilitarian ethics and its necessary trajectory toward both materialism and
hyper-individualism.
The great irony is that the post-war age of personal peace
and affluence was not merely or even mostly a result of 'non-reason' as
Schaeffer would have it but rather the corrupting influence and results of
power and wealth, the reckless embrace of worldly status, a standard of
living/technology progress narrative, an end of war victory lap, an ethos of
'to the victors go the spoils' – resulting in inconsistency, immorality,
hypocrisy and decadence. The 'Greatest Generation' was in actuality not so
great as they did not preserve but actually helped to smash the old order as
they were a forward looking generation keen to build a new society rooted in
their power and affluence. They built an unsustainable society rooted in an
immoral economic order and destroyed culture and tradition in the process. They
seem conservative when compared to the culture of the 1980's, 90's or even
today but such an analysis is short-sighted.
Their protesting children confused and angered them and the
individualism that resulted (born in no small part of the liberal values and
capitalist ethos so pushed on that generation) would also ultimately collapse
as for the most part the Sixties generation would capitulate and end up seeking
the same kind of middle class 'dream' their parents had instilled in them. For
those who have forgotten it was a prominent theme in television shows and
movies of the 1980's – the ex-activists that had sold out and entered the
middle class. They brought some of their values with them but in the end these
people would in many cases end up embracing Right-wing ideas – not conservative,
but Right-wing political positions. When one considers the political sphere, figures
like George Bush and the Clintons immediately come to mind.
Schaeffer is in the dark at this point as he cannot see the
part his Right-wing faction and political allies have played in the overall degradation
of society and the growth of decadence. This is not to say that everything he
says is wrong but if someone were to merely rely on his analysis they would be
ultimately misled.
Were there inconsistencies in the New Left and their
professed admiration for and adherence to Marxist-Leninism? Of course there
were inconsistencies. Is it logical to refer to human dignity and values in a
philosophically materialist framework? Of course not and this merely affirms
the reality all Christians know – that there are no true atheists and no one
can in actuality live out the implications of atheism. I'm not sure why this is
surprising to some – that lost people think and act like they're lost? I
suppose it's really only disturbing if you're trying to create a society filled
with unregenerate people who have been trained and coerced to think like
Christians – as if such a thing were even possible.
Schaeffer identifies Marxism as a Christian heresy because it
recognises values and so therefore because it has a moral argument – it's not
truly atheist. There's an aspect of truth to this but I would rather say it's a
heresy of Christendom or more properly of Classical Liberalism – which
statement is further confused by the fact that Schaeffer et al. think that
Classical Liberalism is in fact Christian.
In reality it's not. Democracy (which Schaeffer later reveals
he does not actually believe in), concepts of rights and personal liberties,
the social contract and capitalism, all outworkings of Enlightenment Liberalism
are un-Christian ideas. Christianity can exist alongside these frameworks but
the Church should never confuse the Kingdom with Liberalism – which is in fact
what has happened and it's something Schaeffer (in a rather muddled fashion)
perpetuates.
Schaffer draws a distinction between aWestern
idealistic-utopian Marxism which had romantic notions about the communist bloc
and the 'orthodox' or hard core Marxism that expressed itself in the East.
His statement is not without some merit and yet once again is
ultimately misleading. First, the 'orthodox' Marxists of the East were not
orthodox. As ideological and committed communists repeatedly pointed out and
continue to do so today, Stalinism and Maoism were deviations from Marxism and
destroyed the democratic basis of socialism. Stalinism was a kind of
Bonapartism, a revolution that had gone off the rails, fallen into terror and
resulted in the rise of a dictatorship – not of the proletariat but in the form
of a Red Tsar. Maoism represented a complete recasting of Marxism, jettisoning
its historical progression and much of its dialectic, it focused on a kind of
peasant anti-colonialist nationalism, resulting in yet another form of
authoritarian rule. Mao was indeed the new emperor and like Stalinism, the
Maoist order would eventually result in the restoration of capitalism.
Now, someone might argue that Marxism doesn't work and will
always devolve into these systems and they might have a point but it should be
noted that Western academics and activists were (and in some cases are) still
focused on ideological Marxism and in some cases were (during the Cold War) misled
by the fact that the Eastern Communist bloc retained the imagery and
nomenclature of Classical Marxism even while it had completely rejected it. We
still see this in places like China and North Korea where communism is 'officially'
retained even though both countries have utterly rejected it. Beijing is an
authoritarian capitalist regime that retains its Maoist trappings and North
Korea is a totalitarian dynastic monarchy with Stalinist accoutrement.
As contemporary communists are quick to point out – the true
Marxist experiment hasn't really happened yet and thus there are some (sincere
but misguided souls) who still argue for it and its potential.
In addition to the deviation represented by Stalinism, other
dissidents such as Milovan Djilas pointed to the rise of the Nomenklatura – the New Class which
revealed the sham of Soviet bloc communism. The supposed classless society was
in fact hierarchical – party members receiving higher pay and nicer houses and
greater freedom. And even within the party there was a hierarchy with
high-ranking members granted access to better schools, better holidays and higher
pay. It wasn't communism. It was an authoritarian state system that often
approached totalitarianism, especially under Stalin. That was the irony to the
fascist-communist conflict. They weren't the same thing. The people who suggest
this or argue that the fascists were Left-wing don't know what they're talking
about. Rather, both systems ended up falling into totalitarianism which for the
average person living daily life – there wasn't much difference. They arrived
at the same point but by means of very different roads.
Returning to Schaeffer we can safely say that his overall
assessment of the Right-Left, East-West spectrum is reductionist and seemingly
ill-informed.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.