From Albert Camus to David Brooks -- A Refutation of Evolution

 

Albert Camus discusses his theatrical production of Dostoyevsky's "The Possessed." 

I was really tickled to stumble across this youtube video the other night.  I realized that after decades of being a Camus acolyte, I had actually never seen him on film but had only seen those iconic still photos of him looking like existential Bogart, cigarette perpetually between his lips.  Seeing him on film you see more of his warmth -- he was always, despite the austere quality of much of his work, quite comradely by reputation -- and the surprise of a couple of shy, almost boyish smiles.  

Alas, those were the days in which genuine public intellectuals strode the earth.  Now we have to settle for the likes of David Brooks, the palest imitation of a public intellectual I can imagine. 

Our Mr. Brooks was haunting the pages of the New York Times Book Review yesterday -- sneaking up on me by surprise.  He reviewed A Non-Believer's Guide to Religion by Alain de Botton, which, if it is as described by Brooks may indeed be an excruciatingly stupid enterprise as well.  (I am puzzled by the general notion of atheists having some sort of playbook on how to convey certain generic values in imitation of religions, since atheism alone is hardly the basis for a complete world view -- I am an atheist and so is Ayn Rand -- I think it is fair to say that other than this, we have absolutely nothing in common.)

Anyway, Brooks makes use of the review to advocate for his own brand of Straussian noble lie, i.e. religion may not be true, but it remains a useful tool of social restraint.  (Brooks is never that overtly cynical, but it seems to me a pretty fair reading of his world view.)  In Brooks's world, the bulk of mankind simply lacks the tools necessary to construct a respectable moral universe; therefore, it is incumbent on society to have some ready made myths and dogmas that can be used to inculcate the lower sorts into modes of acceptable behavior.  (This is similar in its way to the Charles Murray and Ross Douthat views of sexual freedom and the upper classes -- yes, maybe they can handle it, but once the great unwashed get the idea that fornicatin' is respectable, well, the world goes to hell.)  It does not matter that God might not exist -- God is useful and therefor should exist. Otherwise, who knows what sorts of things people will get up to.  (Charles Murray, bless his heart as they say down south, also argues for the powerful social corrective of calling underemployed men "bums" as a way to spur them on to good behavior -- speaking of the deterioration of the concept of public intellectual.  Sheesh.) 

In this sense, Brooks fits in well with his Republican brethren.  They are people who speak endlessly of freedom in theory but are ultimately mistrustful of it in application.  And so freedom for the right winger is the freedom of employers to control and exploit, of religions to impose their dogma, of states to control the most intimate aspects of people's lives.  The federal government must not interfere with the ability of these aforementioned institutions to do their noble work, but it is fine for Washington to enact draconian drug laws and federalize criminal penalties in a way that leads to longer, harsher prison terms.  The central government is free to enhance the constraints on non-elite individuals; it mustn't, however, interfere with the business of social control that fall within the sphere of employers, religions, and the states.     

Genuine freedom -- that is the freedom for the indiviudal to make up his or her own mind, to live the mental and erotic life that one wants, to carve a path that is not the one prescribed by tradition -- is unruly and ultimately unacceptable.  Economic policies that constrain the employer class and redistribute wealth, in the process freeing the bulk of people from want or insecurity are similarly discredited, because economic necessity and insecurity are a highly useful means to make the unworthy mass of men toe the line.  

I am struck, in the end, at how shallow Brooks is in even this game.  The best he can come up with in terms of support for his world view are Augustine and C.S. Lewis.  Is there really no mentally heftier philosopher of religion than Mr. Narnia to whom Brooks can turn?  I guess Kierkegaard and Dostoyevsky are too filled with darkness and ambiguity for sunny Dave.  

I keep hoping Moral Hazard will take a bite out of his ankle some day.      

Comments

[big bad wolf]

the obvious alternative title for after the dash would demean a great camus novel (the fall).

[oddjob]

Genuine freedom -- that is the freedom for the indiviudal to make up his or her own mind, to live the mental and erotic life that one wants, to carve a path that is not the one prescribed by tradition -- is unruly and ultimately unacceptable.

That stance fits well with Evangelical Christian discomfort with our society ever since "the 60's", but it hardly makes any sense at all with regards to Rand's objectivism, no?

[low-tech cyclist]

Ah, the old battle between paternalism and agency.

I may be coming at this from the Christian side of things, but in that context, I've had too many people over the years who were sure they knew what the right answer was for them, and for me too. And if they didn't know what my answer was, they still could tell me what were the acceptable limits within which my answers had to lie.

They can't even run their own lives, I'll be damned if they'll run mine. (No extra charge for the earworm. :^)

No, there's no 'better' folks who can handle freedoms that the 'lesser' folks can't. All of us, whether we're rich or poor, strong or weak, smart or stupid, are still called to wrestle with our lives as best we can, to try to sort out what we're really about, and to find out, each in our own way, what it means to spread our wings and fly.

God's calling all of us to something, but my calling(s) won't be yours, nor can I tell you what yours are, or how to follow that calling once you can say what it is.

That means NO to paternalism, and YES to universal agency, the freedom to make mistakes, to screw up, and eventually thrash our way through to the life we're called to live, usually by a very complicated process of trial and error, of mistake and misdirection before finally finding our bearings. And then losing our way again, and having to find a new path.

But it's a lot easier for people to do this if their every moment isn't taken up by doing what it takes just to survive, or saving up against the possibility of catastrophe. There are societal choices we can make that maximize agency, that assure that all of us have room to make choices, rather than real choice being only in the hands of an affluent few.

My faith says that those choices are the ones that we as a society should be making.

[Sir Charles]

l-t c,

I should also have pointed out that Camus though a non-believer was genuinely respectful of religious belief in the sense that it grappled with the great issues of life and death and suffering and what it means to be here -- and would have found the crude instrumentalism of someone like Brooks to be appalling.

[nancy]

At the risk of sounding like a spambot, I really like this post.

And special appreciation for the clip, Sir C.

[Sir Charles]

nancy,

Not to sound like a groupie, but isn't the smile incredibly winning?

This is a guy I'd like to have a beer with -- well, other than the fact that I couldn't understand a word he said.

[jeanne marie]

ok, that made me laugh

[Linkmeister]

Speaking of employers' right to control and exploit, read this: Law firm fires 14 employees for wearing orange shirts

[scott]

It's becoming more and more apparent every day that the goal of the conservatives is to define a very narrow sphere of choices that are legitimate for the rest of us. I'm linking below to a post from Digby, where she makes the point (again) that a lot of what drives conservatives like Limbaugh and others is pure male sexual panic about what men and women "should be." I really wish that more people would understand what you and Digby are rightly pointing out, which is that the party which likes to talk about liberty and freedom is really about control and repression, in the bedroom, in your relationships, and in the workplace. Once you realize that, mushy-mushy centrist "can't we all meet in the sensible center" talk seems even shallower and more blinkered.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/03/liberals-resist-this-taunt.html

[Sir Charles]

Linkmeister,

I think there might be a case to be made that those firings violated the National Labor Relations Act because the employer acted to punish them for what they perceived to be protected concerted activity protected by Section 7 of the Act.

scott,

Absolutely.

[Linkmeister]

One hopes they're talking to lawyers. One wonders why the law firm which employed them isn't aware of that possibility, too.

[kathy a.]

i don't like orange much, but really. my college is orange and black, and so is my daughter's; exceptions to taste must be made. my beloved, devoted dad (and bicyclist) that he is, would be completely out of luck if orange was declared illegal.

all the news is really depressing me lately.

[beckya57]

Sir C, I really liked the post too. I'm not an atheist, but I've always found the notion that people need to believe in a God in order to live moral lives to be absurd. I've mentioned a work friend before, (a physician), who is one of the most honorable and ethical people I've ever met in my life. He's an atheist (calls himself a secular humanist). He's also involved with a local church, as am I, as he likes the activities they have, but doesn't attend the religious services because he doesn't believe. He and I have talked about this whole issue a number of times, and we respect each others' views and have essentially agreed to disagree. The idea that his morals and ethics are somehow lessened because he's not a believer is ridiculous.

My husband likes to quote Jung's statement that religious dogma is the way people defend themselves against the true religious experience, which many people find overwhelming and frightening, because it shakes up their whole world view. That's always made sense to me.

[Sir Charles]

Linkmeister,

Never underestimate the arrogance of lawyers.

kathy,

That's funny, my high school colors were also black and orange -- very Halloweeny.

becky,

The intersting thing about someone like Camus is that he keenly felt God's absence in his way. He enjoyed the company of left wing priests and renegade clergy.

He himself was pilloried by the French left for refusing to worship the god of history and make excuses for Stalin.

He was a philosopher (although he rejected that term) who was very afraid of the overly abstract. When the Algerian revolution broke out -- his homeland -- he was also condemned in France for trying to find a peaceful way to resolve the situation and refused to embrace the FLN. He commented that if he had to choose between "justice" and his mother, he would chose his mother.

[Gene O'Grady]

Not only was Camus a philosopher, he was also (I understand) an athlete in college, playing goalie on the University soccer team.

When I taught catechism I was always appalled at the parents who brought in their kids (I taught sixth graders) for their first religious ed and somehow expected that three classes with me with clean up the act of an unruly twelve year old.

[KN]

Can't comment.

[KN]

I got tripped up by your system, it ate my comment that was oh so carefully composed and well argued. Alas, such is life on the Intertubes.

I won't try to repeat the comment because it would probably have the same fate, I will be more blunt. Religion is nothing but elaborate superstition.

As a species, we have a kind of unique survival trait that can be called reason. Amazingly, after more than 200 years of unambiguous success using reason to mitigate and direct the course of natural events we have a strident and vociferous cult screaming to revert to the utterly failed delusion that there is some divine plan for the future. It is odd, to be back on the school yard battle ground 50 years later.

[kathy a.]

oh, gene. what a job.

[nancy]

Sir C -- I had a major college girl crush. I was sure his smile would be just as it showed itself to be.

And my spoken French is crappy, but I'd have faked it over that beer. :-)

[Mandos]

BTW, this 2003 essay by John Holbo on David Frum and "Donner Party Conservatism" seems to be related. It's an internet classic, but long.

[nancy]

Uh oh. Dinner-making hour. I'll have to get back to this Mandos. Looks quite intriguing though. Thanks. And yes, long. :-)

All relative isn't it.

[nancy]

Mandos -- Remarkable essay. Best dissection I've read of the incoherence, but truth about the whole modern conservative enterprise. Bonus points for Bennett imagery.

The stoical endurance of the Donner party in the face of almost unimaginable suffering is indeed moving. The perseverance of the survivors is a lasting testament to the endurance of the human spirit. (On the other hand, the deaths of all who stoically refused to cannibalize their fellows might be deemed an equal, perhaps a greater testament.) But it is by no means obvious – some further demonstration would seem in order – that lawmakers and formulators of public policy should therefore make concerted efforts to emulate the Donner’s dire circumstances. What will the bumper-stickers say? “It’s the economy, stupid! We need to bury it under ten to twelve feet of snow so that we will be forced to cannibalize the dead and generally be objects of moral edification to future generations.”

And

I think we are beginning to see why Frum feels that his philosophy may be a loser come election time. I think the Donner party – who, be it noted, set out seeking economic prosperity in the West, not snow and starvation – would not vote Republican on the strength of William Bennett’s comfortable edification at the spectacle of their abject misery. (“Let’s start with the fat one over there in the corner, playing the slots. We can eat off him for a week. See how he likes it.”)

To put what is surely rather an obvious point yet another way: if the Donner party is really what you want, the policy riddle (how to reproduce these conditions, since the Donner party was not political, per se?) already has an answer: Stalinism.

Thanks for the link. I hope Holbo finds some time for a 2012 update which begs to be done.