Category Archive 'Relativism'
15 Apr 2018
The late Kenneth Clark.
The BBC has decided to attempt to rebut Kenneth Clark’s magisterial tour d’horizon of Western Art, the 13-part 1969 television series “Civilization.” This rejoinder on behalf of our contemporary Woke Multicultural Establishment begins appearing Tuesday evening in the United States on PBS.
Kenneth Clark singlehandedly took viewers from Greek Antiquity to the 20th Century, but correcting Clark’s Eurocentric emphasis on Dead White Great Men apparently requires three presenters: Classicist Mary Beard, the talented (but respectably progressive) historian Simon Schama, and (the Nigerian and therefore full-fledged representative of the viewpoint of persons and cultures of Color) David Olusoga.
Andrew Ferguson, at the Weekly Standard, has seen the series, and warns us what to expect:
[Civilizations] is kind of Clark-like â€”a catalogue of glorious creations followed by a vision of an art form in an advanced state of spiritual exhaustion. The difference is that the decline of an art form saddened Clark. Each of the episodes of Civilisations that Iâ€™ve seen ends with a celebratory profile of a contemporary artist. Invariably their work suffers in comparison with whatâ€™s gone beforeâ€”how could it not?â€”but the moments serve a summary purpose.
The episode called â€œHow Do We Look?â€ closes with Kehinde Wiley, the artist who recently completed the official presidential portrait of Barack Obama. The narrator describes Wiley as a practitioner of â€œthe modern art of the body,â€ which â€œdraws its powerâ€ from â€œchallenging the tradition of classical art.â€ Of course he lives in Brooklyn but â€œhe has traveled all over the world to explore the legacy of colonialism and the different ways we see.â€ Suddenly we see him in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, moving from masterpiece to masterpiece. A tinny ensemble plays Vivaldiâ€”a fusty reminder of the distant past. â€œI love the history of art,â€ he tells the camera. â€œI love looking at these beautiful images. But I also recognize that thereâ€™s something quite sinister about their past.â€
â€œSinisterâ€ sounds judgmental, doesnâ€™t it? So judgmental indeed that I donâ€™t think even Clark used it at all in his Civilisation. But it nicely summarizes the attitude toward the West that viewers of the new Civilisations will find unavoidable, even if theyâ€™re confident enough to find it unpersuasive.
Next to life-enhancing, the most important word in Clarkâ€™s account of civilization was confidence. Several things came together to make a civilization, Clark said: a measure of material prosperity, a sense of history, a range of vision, and a feeling of permanence, of being situated in a particular moment between past and future, that makes it worthwhile to construct things meant to last.
â€œBut far more,â€ he said, â€œit requires confidenceâ€”confidence in the society in which one lives, belief in its philosophy, belief in its laws, confidence in oneâ€™s own mental powers.â€ His program was an effort to persuade his audience that confidence in their inherited civilization was well-earned.
In the closing moments of the final episode of Civilisation, Clark intended to strike a note of optimism. â€œWhen I look at the world about me in the light of these programs, I donâ€™t at all feel as though we are entering on a new period of barbarism,â€ he said. He shows us the campus of the then-new University of East Anglia. Apple-cheeked college students pop in and out of classrooms, labor over booksâ€”the baby boomers as Clark hoped they were in 1969. â€œThese inheritors of all our catastrophes look cheerful enough. . . . In fact, I should doubt if so many people have ever been as well-fed, as well-read, as bright-minded, as curious, and as critical as the young are today.â€
Watching at home, we can assume, was the 14-year-old Mary Beard, all a-tingle and raring to go to college herself, where she could use her curiosity and reading and bright-mindedness to prove the great man and his theory wrong.
A recent biography of Kenneth Clark and his “Civilization” series was recently discussed here.
06 Apr 2011
From Diogenes via Vanderleun:“Stop judging. We’re all just sixty million dollars, thirty porn stars, and one ton of cocaine away from being Charlie Sheen.”
08 Jun 2009
Roger Scruton, in the American Spectator, describes how sloth, self-indulgence, and intellectual cowardice led the modern university to surrender to egalitarian relativism and thus to be politicized.
As universities expanded, the humanities began to displace the sciences from the curriculum. Students wished to use their time at university to cultivate their leisure interests and to improve their souls, rather than to learn hard facts and complex theories. And there arose a serious question as to why universities were devoting their resources to subjects that made so little discernible difference to the wider world. What good do the humanities do, and why should students take three or four years out of their lives in order to read books whichâ€”if they were interestedâ€”they would read in any case, and whichâ€”if they were not interestedâ€”would never do them the least bit of good?
In the days when the humanities involved knowledge of classical languages and an acquaintance with German scholarship, there was no doubt that they required real mental discipline, even if their point could reasonably be doubted. But once subjects like English were admitted to a central place in the curriculum, the question of their validity became urgent. And then, in the wake of English came the pseudo-humanitiesâ€”womenâ€™s studies, gay studies and the likeâ€”which were based on the assumption that, if English is a discipline, so too are they. And since there is no cogent justification for womenâ€™s studies that does not dwell upon the subjectâ€™s ideological purpose, the entire curriculum in the humanities began to be seen in ideological terms. …
Subjects like English and art history grew from the desire to teach young people how to discriminate art from effect, beauty from kitsch, and real from phony sentiment. This ability was not regarded as an unimportant skill like fencing or horse riding, which students are free to acquire or not, according to their interests. It was regarded as a real form of knowledge, as vital to the future of civilization as the knowledge of mathematics, and more closely connected with the moral health of society than any natural science. It was only on that assumption that the humanities acquired their central place in the modern university.
If, however, the humanities are to avoid the cultivation of taste, it is not only their central place in the curriculum that is thrown in doubt. Given their prominence in the modern university, and the fact that increasingly many students come to university who are unprepared for any other form of study, any change in the humanities is a change in the very idea of a university. Conservatives often complain about the politicization of the universities, and about the fact that only liberal views are propagated or even tolerated on campus. But they fail to see the true cause of this, which is the internal collapse of the humanities. When judgment is marginalized or forbidden nothing remains save politics. The only permitted way to compare Jane Austen and Maya Angelou, or Mozart and Meshuggah, is in terms of their rival political postures. And then the point of studying Jane Austen or Mozart is lost. What do they have to tell us about the ideological conflicts of today, or the power struggles that are played out in the faculty common room?
The true conservative cause, when it comes to the universities, ought to be the restoration of judgment to its central place in the humanities. And that shows how difficult a task the recapture of the universities will be. It will require a confrontation with the culture of youth, and an insistence that the real purpose of universities is not to flatter the tastes of those who arrive there, but to present them with a rite of passage into something better.
Read the whole thing.
08 Jan 2009
Roger Kimball in the January New Criterion:
It is often said that an anthropologist is someone who respects the distinctive values of every culture but his own. We in the West are all anthropologists now. It is curious, though, that proponents of relativism and multiculturalism should use ethnocentrism as a stick with which to beat the West. After all, both the idea and the critique of ethnocentrism are quintessentially Western. There has never in history been a society more open to other cultures than our own; nor has any tradition been more committed to self-criticism than the Western tradition: the figure of Socrates endlessly inviting self-scrutiny and rational explanation is a definitive image of the Western spirit. Moreover, â€œWesternâ€ science is not exclusively Western: it is science plain and simple. It was, to be sure, invented and developed in the West, but it is as true for the inhabitants of the Nile Valley as it is for the denizens of New York. That is why, outside the precincts of the humanities departments of Western universities, there is a mad dash to acquire Western science and technology. The deepest foolishness of multiculturalism shows itself in the puerile attacks it mounts on the cogency of scientific rationality, epitomized poignantly by the Afrocentrist who flips on his word processor to write books decrying the parochial nature of Western science and extolling the virtues of the â€œAfrican way.â€…
Why does relativism, which begins with a beckoning promise of liberation from â€œoppressiveâ€ moral constraints, so often end in the embrace of immoral constraints that are politically obnoxious? Part of the answer lies in the hypertrophy or perversion of relativismâ€™s conceptual enablersâ€”terms like â€œpluralism,â€ â€œdiversity,â€ â€œtolerance,â€ and the like. They all name classic liberal virtues, but it turns out that their beneficence depends on their place in a constellation of fixed values. Absent that hierarchy, they rapidly degenerate into epithets in the armory of political suasion. They retain the aura of positive values, but in reality they are what Gairdner calls â€œvalue-dispersing terms that serve as an official warning to accept all behaviours of others without judgment and, most important, to keep all moral opinions private.â€ In this sense, the rise of relativism encourages an ideology of non-judgmentalism only as a prelude to ever more strident discriminations. â€œWhere conditions permit,â€ Gairdner writes, the strong step in:
either to impose a new regime or, as in the Western democracies, where overt totalitarianism is still unthinkable, to further permeate ordinary life with the stateâ€™s quietly overbearing, regulating role. Relativism is the natural public philosophy of such regimes because it repudiates all natural moral or social binding power, replacing these with legal decrees and sanction of the state.
Read the whole thing.
Hat tip to Karen L. Myers.
Your are browsing
the Archives of Never Yet Melted
in the 'Relativism' Category.