Thomas Stearns Eliot begins his essay by stating his belief that the "attitudes and beliefs of Liberalism are destined to disappear". He bases this belief on his own analysis and observations of society. In fact, he says, they are "already disappearing". While I am not as optimistic as Eliot over the imminent demise of 'Liberalism' within Western society, I do share his belief in its ultimate end. Eliot points out that "out of Liberalism itself come philosophies which deny it." He sees a primary danger within the acceptance and promulgation of 'Liberalism' as a paramount philosophy for a society. He warns that ultimately it is a belief whereby "We are in danger of finding ourselves with nothing to stand for except a dislike of everything..." He analyses the dangers facing any society and concludes, "The more highly industrialized the country, the more easily a materialistic philosophy will flourish in it...the tendency of unlimited industrialism is to create bodies of men and women...detached from tradition, alienated from religion, and susceptible to mass suggestion..." As Liberalism takes hold of society more and more strongly, Eliot suggests the problem grows more rampant because of the liberal notion that religion is "a matter of private belief and of conduct in private life". This separation of religion and public life (rule of society), culminates in "the growth of an un-Christian society about us, its more obvious intrusion upon our lives, has been breaking down the comfortable distinction between public and private morality. The problem of leading a Christian life in a non-Christian society is now very present to us, and it is a very different problem from that of the accommodation between an Established Church and dissenters...It is the problem constituted by our implication in a network of institutions from which we cannot dissociate ourselves: institutions the operation of which appears no longer neutral, but non-Christian. And as for the Christian who is not conscious of his dilemma - and he is in the majority - he is becoming more and more de-Christianized by all sorts of unconscious pressure".
What is it that Eliot fears most? Most obvious is that he fears intolerance toward Christianity and a Christian minority. He can easily forsee persecution of this minority taking any of a number of forms. Interestingly enough, what he fears most is "it may turn out that the most intolerable thing for Christians is to be tolerated." What he means by this statement, I believe, is that a Christian minority, left without outright persecution, is left to cope on its own with the insideous pressures and persecutions that engender loss of faith among followers who are not steadfast in their faith and vigilant in their practice. He postulates, "We might, of course, merely sink into an apathetic decline: without faith, and therefore without faith in ourselves; without a philosophy of life, either Christian or pagan; and without art...a state of affairs in which we shall have regimentation and conformity, without respect for the needs of the individual soul; the puritanism of a hyhienic morality in the interest of efficiency; uniformity of opinion through propaganda, and art only encouraged when it flatters the official doctrines of the time." The only true recourse is that of the true Christian society. He projects, "That prospect involves, at least, discipline, inconvenience and discomfort".
Eliot suggests that one of the great faults of a society based solely on liberal principles is that of a lack of continuity and coherence in societal culture. Without such, there is little to differentiate between the educated and uneducated. he states, "In a negative liberal society you have no agreement as to there being any body of knowledge which any educated persons should have acquired at any particular time...A nation's system of education is much more important than its system of government". Education simply becomes, before long, synonymous with instruction. "The next step to be taken by the clericalism of secularism, is the inculcation of the political principles approved by the party in power". This is an attack on the individual and on individula freedoms. What are some of the signs? He points out, "people who consider it 'unnatural' and therefore repugnant, that a person of either sex should elect a life of celibacy, consider it perfectly 'natural' that families should be limited to one or two children. It would perhaps be more natural, as well as in better conformity with the Will of God, if there were more celibates and if those who were married had larger families." What lies at the heart of these discrepancies? He prognosticates, "a wrong attitude toward nature implies, somewhere, a wrong attitude towards God, and that the consequence is an inevitable doom". What is the only recourse, and way forward? "We need to know how to see the world as the Christian Fathers saw it; and the purpose of reascending to origins is that we should be able to return, with greater spiritual knowledge, to our own situation. We need to recover the sense of religious fear, so that it may be overcome by religious hope."
No comments:
Post a Comment