|
My
recent reading has been
more re-reading, going
back to (for me)
foundational texts that
have had a hand in
sculpting my
understanding of the
world.
Richard Rorty’s Contingency, irony, and solidarity is one of
those. The reason
for going back to it
has to do with our
current political
situation. I wanted to
reëxamine his
argument, in the latter
part of the book, about
the divide between
public and private
lives and the place of
politics in each. Rorty
knows that the border
between the two is
porous, but he wants to
reserve a
“privateness”
to the private parts of
one’s life, which
he describes as
“ironist,”
so that the liberal
humanist project of
solidarity does not bog
down in a reliance on
unreliable universalist
truths about human
nature but instead has
an anchor in the
contingent suffering
each person suffers
from day to day.
Using Rorty’s own
insistence that
language and its
meanings are never
finished and always
morphable, I feel these
days that the
topographic divide that
Rorty gives to life
– private here,
public there –
has dissolved under the
solvent of our current
American politics,
where tweets act as
policy statements,
personal presidential
gain is the dominant
democratic project and
we are all forced to
take a stand on our
common slippery slope,
like it or not.
We now breathe the air
of a smoldering
landscape of anger,
intolerance, and
triumphalism. However,
these fires are not new
fires. They have always
kept American history
on a low boil, flaring
up at times in civil
wars and genocides, and
then falling back,
never extinguished.
The heat and pollution
of the American burn is
what gives Raoul
Peck’s
documentary about James
Baldwin, I Am Not Your Negro,
such a searing effect,
at least to me
(I’ve seen it
twice). The heavy
sadness laced
throughout
Baldwin’s version
of the history of black
people in white America
easily maps onto our
republic, in the throes
of its latest
fever-dream, where many
gleefully demonize
others and inflict
cruelties upon them
while using linguistic
dodges – national
security, the safety of
the homeland – to
excuse their barbarism.
Not without resistance,
though, which is good
to see, millions
committed to finding
ways to stabilize the
slippery slope and make
the ground more
supportive, just as in
Baldwin’s time
the civil rights
movement bloodied its
way towards something
like a victory.
But as important as
this resistance is,
both in its short-term
marching and
longer-term
institution-building,
it will be not
sufficient to put out
those coal-seam fires
burrowing through the
American historical
record. The fires
exist, as Baldwin
points out, because the
dominant white culture
has not faced, and thus
has not answered, this
question: What is it in
you that needs to
create the nigger (the
“nigger”
here not just black
people but any people
deemed the
“other,”
whether that be Native
Americans or Muslims,
and, as the
“other,”
not even really
considered fully human)?
Baldwin’s sadness
is also our sadness,
his unanswered question
the toxin that poisons
all efforts at
solidarity and forms
the basis of a society
that seems unable to
feel satisfied and
purposeful domestically
and stands discredited
internationally.
However, when Baldwin
is asked if he is an
optimist, he answers
that he is forced to be
an optimist because he
is alive, and his
answer stands for us as
well. But because his
optimism is not
cheerful, we may ask
how useful can it be.
My answer would be that
any chance of putting
out those subterranean
fires begins by
disassembling our
ill-structured private
American selves, the
part of human life that
Rorty privileges.
We need to stop
believing in
principles, like
American exceptionalism
and white supremacy,
that harden our hearts
and block our ears.
We need to chuck out
most of Christian
theology and keep the
few tenets concerning
charity and resistance
mouthed by Jesus, the
way Jefferson amended
the New Testament to
get rid of the miracles
and keep the moral
teachings.
We need to ’fess
up to the truth of how
American prosperity
required, and still
requires, immense blood
sacrifices of the
powerless and the
foreign.
We need to retire the
myths of rugged
individualism and
bootstrapping
self-helpery in order
to make room for
“the more perfect
union” we
promised ourselves
two-and-a-half
centuries ago.
We need to become real
adults so that we can
acquire a deeper
acceptance of how our
limitations and
frailties as meat
creatures can, and
should, take the piss
out of any abstract
idealism or righteous
crusading and instead
bind us in a solidarity
of shared bodies and
pain.
If, in this country,
the people are truly to
be the governors, then
we, as those
“people,”
need to become people
worthy of governing
ourselves. This
requires discipline
– the
species’
simultaneous strength
and weakness is that
humans are born in a
malleable state and do
not, from the womb,
come equipped with
love, humility,
patience,
self-deprecation, and
humor.
The antidote to
Trumpism begins in
disciplining our
private lives to be a
people worthy of
exercising power and
discretion. The angels
of a better nature are
built, not summoned; if
we do not build them,
they will not come.
What will take their
place will be the
demons of our human
nature, the ego,
appetite, and
selfishness embedded in
our DNA that may enable
the creature to survive a hostile world but ensures that the creature will not become a humane human being.
This is, I think, what
Baldwin means by
linking optimism to
being alive: we may not
have done it right, but
that doesn’t mean
we can’t do it
right: the possibility
is never foreclosed as
long as people are
breathing and feel pain
in their bodies.
The great gift of
Trumpism, if such a
phrase can be used, is
that it is spurring us
(at least some of us)
to get it right this
time. The fight is
public and private,
against the external
powers and against our
own sloth, for a
commonwealth peopled by
governors schooled for
the task. It is not
enough to rail against
the barbarians and hope
they don’t invade
your home. Better to
assume that they will
act as barbarians
usually do and take it
upon yourself to be the
best example of the
civilization you want
to protect, which will
also be the best
defense against the
siege of this wrecking
crew.
|