Men Have Forgotten God

 

If modernist art and the human sciences had been dissolving the West’s cultural foundations for decades, the First World War brought the utopian structure down like an edifice demolished.

The Age of Nihilism: Christendom from the Great War to the Culture Wars, by John Strickland

The Enlightenment project hit its peak in the second half of the nineteenth century.  The last stronghold of the institutionalized inequality of man, slavery, was banished in the West.  Economic growth was accelerating – a clear vision of an improved economic standard of living for all.  Personal liberty, for most, was clearly advancing.

The achievements of utopia may have been impressive on economic and political levels, but on a cultural level things were different. … It was becoming increasingly evident that utopia was threatened by the very beliefs and values that inspired it.

In other words, liberalism does not have the means to defend and hold onto liberalism; Enlightenment values were killing the Enlightenment.  It is very easy to see this today, but there were those who saw this coming more than a century ago – men like Chesterton and Belloc.

Nietzsche and Wagner were already being venerated at the dawn of the twentieth century.  They inspired a new generation of nihilist thinkers.  Music, art, literature, science, philosophy – all developed branches from this nihilistic trunk.  The one thing all had in common, regardless of discipline: a conscious effort to destroy Christianity.  In other words, deconstruction: a rejection of what the West had once been, to be replaced with…whatever.

For its elitist membership, all values inherited from Christendom’s distant and recent past were to be abandoned in exchange for a life of sensuality and rebellion.

Franz Kafka demonstrates the inevitable future.  In Metamorphosis, the hero awakens one morning to find he has been transformed into a monstrous insect:

It is an absurd and disturbing opening, but the story amasses an ever-growing series of setbacks to demonstrate that utopian man is anything but what the humanists had once proclaimed.

But this is almost child’s play when seen against The Trial.  The hero is charged with a crime he did not commit.  In fact, the crime is never even named. 

His hero is persecuted, arrested, put on trial, and finally, in the last scene, “shot like a dog.”

Emile Durkheim would write of anomie, a condition in which the individual, cut off from traditional morality, is unable to live morally.  In other words, it isn’t that God is dead; it is that man is dead to God.

Durkheim met the end of his life wondering when, exactly, the anomy caused by secularization would be alleviated.  For his twenty-first century successors measuring suicide rates in the sociology departments of modern universities, the question is still being asked.

But of all of the branches that grew from the trunk of nihilism, perhaps the most culturally subversive human science to appear was psychology.  And the father of this branch was Sigmund Freud.  In his wake, the sexual conventions of two millennia became casualties.  And the fruit of this nihilistic tree was running full-speed toward the abyss of the Great War. 

The blow that hurled the modern world on its course of self-destruction was the Great War of 1914 – 1918. (Barzun*)

Ideological nationalism, the efficiency of the bureaucratic state, government-led propaganda, mass conscription, and the new industrial economy – all products of the new utopian civilization erected over the previous century – led to the deaths of some ten million soldiers and another ten million civilians due to hunger and disease.

Family as Foundation

I have received several comments to my post Libertarians and Culture.  I have decided to address selected comments via this post.

Robert Wenzel was gracious enough to publish my post at Target Liberty.  I will begin by addressing one of the comments from Wenzel’s site, regarding this paragraph of the original post:

Every thriving – even surviving – society requires governance; not government as the term is currently understood, but governance.  The lowest level, closest to most voluntary, most decentralized level of societal governance, is the family.  Destroy the moral foundations of family and you destroy society.  Of this there is no doubt, and history has enough examples.

The comment:

I don't share the same view of how sacred the family is. This smacks of conservative moralizing. Genetic connection is one of the least voluntary connections. Family members are often people one would never choose to affiliate with otherwise.

Who said anything about sacred?  Unless one falls into the Bakunin camp of anarchist thought, there will be hierarchical structures in human institutions.  Anarcho-capitalists desire that these hierarchical structures are – to a maximum extent – voluntary. 

There will be governance.  As an adult, I voluntarily submit to many forms of this: to my customers (whether a boss or consumer), to my spouse, to my church, to social norms (within bounds that I find reasonable).

There are some basic facts about family: every single person on earth has a father and mother – maybe not present (but this issue only furthers my point), but a father and mother nonetheless; except for cases of rape, the relationship between the father and mother was voluntary – I suspect most would agree the most intimate voluntary relationship.

Children are raised in a family – again, I am quite aware of the dysfunction in society today where this is not always or even often the case, but this only furthers my point.  For children, the relationship isn’t voluntary in any sense that fits within the generally-accepted meaning of the term, but libertarian theory has more than one incomplete answer when it comes to the issue of children.

Once children reach maturity – however you care to define the term – off they go, responsible for their own way; the relationship between child and parent is re-defined, and now voluntary.  If the now-mature child – or the parent – no longer wishes to associate with the other, feel free.

But where was the foundation laid?  There is no institution on earth that is more common to all than family, and in no other institution could one say that the foundation for and application of governance (not government) is as widespread.  None.

From whom should children receive this governance if not the parents (because, protest as you might, a child will receive governance) – public schools, head start programs, mandatory pre-school, government paid supervisors, television?  Can it be argued that third-party intellectuals, on average, know better what is good for the day-to-day raising of your child than you do?  A peek into any of these bureaucracies and institutions will provide a decisive answer to the question.

Regarding the dysfunctionalities that I touched on above, these are nothing more than breakdowns in the foundation of family.  It need not be labeled “conservative moralizing” to suggest that children being raised in a two parent home have a better chance at a successful life – meaning a life where they can contribute positively to society; there is evidence of this in every racial and socio-economic group.  Look around you and tell me otherwise.  I don’t mean as exceptions – of these there are many.  I mean as a rule.

Can it be argued that this foundation in a family is irrelevant, that however a child is raised for the first five, ten, eighteen or whatever years doesn’t matter?  Once they get out of the house they start with…nothing…a clean mental, intellectual and moral slate?  I am no sociologist or psychologist, but I know enough to know the answer to this question.

I know that libertarians – myself included – point to various voluntary organizations to provide governance and support in the absence of a state: churches, civic organizations, social clubs, etc.  There are two important things missing in each of these that are present in the family: first, none of these are as universal; second, by the time someone joins, much of the foundation for what an individual will be has already been laid….in the family.

Now, what about destroying society if the family is destroyed.  This won’t take long: the results speak for themselves.  In most environments, cultures, and communities where the family is not valued, civil society isn’t to be found.

For those who believe that this is all just conservative moralizing, consider the possibility that a libertarian society will be a far less libertine society than what we live in today.  Who will subsidize the libertine lifestyle in a libertarian society, as the state does today?  Children out of wedlock is perhaps the most obvious example, but if I want to spend some time on making a list, I can come up with a few more.

Now, on to some of the feedback at my site:

The Price of Being a Pioneer

That Galileo, Kepler, Bacon, Jung, Pascal, and Descartes – all men of the 17C – are better known than their elders in science is the kind of wrong that happens in all fields of culture.  The pioneers, the first who struggle out of the established systems and who form new and useful conceptions, appear only half right, incomplete, and their names stay remote.  But they are perhaps more to be cherished than those who come after, who clear off the debris and offer a neater, more full-blown view.

Jacques Barzun, From Dawn to Decadence

Barzun identifies several 17^th century individuals who built upon foundations that came before, in many cases during the Middle Ages.  Many, but not all, of the pioneers from the earlier time are lost to us, although their work influences us even today.  Barzun suggests that none of these later, more well-known, men of genius stood on their own.

Barzun also recognizes that these earlier pioneers often were not quite right, in some cases incomplete.  I wonder how it could be otherwise – when truly charting a new and unknown course, is it even conceivable that every step, every conclusion, remains valid after subsequent developments in the field?  Yet, there would be no “field” in which to discover error without these pioneers.

This is a post about Murray Rothbard, unquestionably a pioneer.  There is no developed body of libertarian thought without him.  Separately, no one made Austrian economics more readable for the layman than he did.  This is to say nothing of the significant work he did in revisionist history and power-elite analysis.

I will focus on two aspects of his work, the aspects that I believe best fit the description above by Barzun: the development of libertarian thought and the work he did to make Austrian economics accessible to the layman.

Libertarian Thought

I wonder if there even is libertarian thought had Rothbard not existed.  I don’t mean concepts about liberty, natural law, property rights, etc.  These all existed in bits and pieces before Rothbard was born.  I mean an integrated and well-developed philosophy; work that explains the theory, practical application, and how to get there from here.  When are interim steps toward liberty appropriate?  Rothbard offers the answer.  The immorality of nuclear weapons – not only in use but even in possession?  Rothbard applies consistent libertarian theory to answer the question.  Developing a consistent application of the non-aggression principle to a wide variety of circumstances?  Rothbard has likely covered whatever subject you have in mind.

Do you have a question regarding pretty much any libertarian topic?  Odds are high that Rothbard has already addressed it.  Do you want to point someone to a readable book on the topic?  Odds are high that Rothbard wrote it.

Accessible Austrian Economics

Admit it: Mises can be tough to read.  How many people would slog through The Theory of Money and Credit as their introduction to this school?  (I tried; it didn’t work.)

Pick up anything by Rothbard on the subject and it reads about as easily as your favorite novel.  Human Action too tough?  Try Man, Economy, and State.  This is to say nothing about his countless works applying Austrian economics to events of both his time and through history.

I would be remiss to not mention Henry Hazlitt in this regard – he wrote so wonderfully well and also brought Austrian economic analysis to the layman.  But no one offered a meaningful fraction of the output and breadth that Rothbard did.

What’s the Point?

Rothbard is often a favored target, a whipping boy for some in the libertarian and Austrian communities.  In the broad libertarian community, he is derided as a purist, not practical.  To some Austrians, his views on fractional reserve banking are derided – and used to justify marginalizing him as an economist.

I return to the quote from Barzun:

The pioneers, the first who struggle out of the established systems and who form new and useful conceptions, appear only half right, incomplete, and their names stay remote. 

Thankfully (due to the efforts of another pioneer), Rothbard’s name has not stayed remote.  I myself have disagreement with Rothbard on a handful of subjects; I feel quite settled that my conclusions are correct and his are not – of course, I could be wrong.

But they are perhaps more to be cherished than those who come after, who clear off the debris and offer a neater, more full-blown view.

Even with my disagreements, I stand in awe and respect of the man and his work.  He was a pioneer in these two fields – and this says nothing of the work he did to advance the ball on many other subjects.  Rothbard is to be cherished far more than any who have come after – without Rothbard, there would be no “after”; virtually no one to offer criticism. 

I feel on firm ground to suggest that there would be no libertarian movement as we have come to know it if Rothbard did not exist – perhaps, more generously, his four-plus decades of work advanced the science by a century or two.  In other words, our time would not yet enjoy this knowledge.

As to Austrian economics, whatever his critics might offer, what cannot be taken away is that Rothbard has done more to bring more people to this school than any other individual alive or dead. Perhaps this is why they criticize.

We have seen the recent explosion of interest in both Austrian and libertarian concepts, driven by the fortuitous confluence of Ron Paul, the internet, and the financial calamity of 2007 / 2008.  Without Murray Rothbard, while the same events would have transpired, it is easy to imagine there would have been no cohesive message with which to make sense of it.

Bernard of Chartres, in the twelfth century, had exclaimed: “We are dwarfs who have climbed on the shoulders of giants.”  He nonetheless concluded that, thus carried by the Ancients, he could “see farther than they could”.

Is it surprising that aspects of both libertarian thought and Austrian economics have advanced beyond Rothbard, in some cases calling into question some of his conclusions?  To expect otherwise is to defy both progress and logic.  Yet all of the critics are truly dwarfs – many not even able to admit that they are standing on the shoulders of a giant – when compared to this man.  For every possible criticism, there are 100 reasons to be grateful.

The errors or disagreements make the man even more remarkable.  Through these, we are reminded he was merely human.

As Barzun offers, this is why we cherish such pioneers.

The Dawn of Decadence

I return to “From Dawn to Decadence” by Jacques Barzun.  As a brief introduction for those who did not see my earlier post:

Over seven decades, Barzun wrote and edited more than forty books touching on an unusually broad range of subjects, including science and medicine, psychiatry from Robert Burton through William James to modern methods, and art, and classical music; he was one of the all-time authorities on Hector Berlioz.

At 84 years of age, he began writing his swan song, to which he devoted the better part of the 1990s. The resulting book of more than 800 pages, From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life, 1500 to the Present, reveals a vast erudition and brilliance undimmed by advanced age. Historians, literary critics, and popular reviewers all lauded From Dawn to Decadence as a sweeping and powerful survey of modern Western history…

Introduction

In the prologue, Barzun offers his summary view and objective for the book:

By tracing in broad outline the evolution of art, science, religion, philosophy, and social thought during the last 500 years, I hope to show that during this span the peoples of the West offered the world a set of ideas and institutions not found earlier or elsewhere.

… [the west] has pursued characteristic purposes – that is its unity – and now these purposes, carried out to their utmost possibility, are bringing about its demise.

What is this demise, this decadence?

All that is meant by Decadence is “falling off.”  It implies in those who live in such a time no loss of energy or talent or moral sense.  On the contrary, it is a very active time, full of deep concerns, but peculiarly restless, for it sees no clear line of advance.  The loss it faces is that of Possibility.

The Beginning of the End

Barzun spends some 650 pages providing a thorough overview of western culture and civilization; to examine this in detail is well outside of the scope of this blog.  Barzun expertly demonstrates the wealth of the west – in both economic and cultural terms.  Many of the most significant individuals are reviewed – very few from the ranks of politics!  Then he comes to the beginning of the end:

The blow that hurled the modern world on its course of self-destruction was the Great War of 1914-18.

Much has been said about the causes of the Great War, and all the chief actors in the feverish August days – nations and individuals both – have been accused of making it inevitable.  No conclusion has been agreed upon because no action can be held to have been decisive by itself.  The most that can be charged against any officials is that the Austrian Minister Konrad von Hetzendorf wanted a war and that Sir Edward Grey in the Foreign Office vacillated before announcing that Britain would side with France.  All the other diplomats and heads of state worked hard to avert the catastrophe.

A war of the west in destruction of the west; this much is certain.

Shaw and the Fabians

What led to this Great War?  Barzun offers as prologue to the war the cheap daily paper, “in which raucous propaganda, crime, and scandal were the main fare, but not the only attraction.”  As an example, the work done by Hearst to drive popular opinion in America for the Spanish-American War.

In addition, many periodicals were introduced or gained influence:

The Saturday Review, The New Age, The New Statesman, The Spectator in England, The Nation, The New Republic in the United States.

There were various other publications written by one or another individual or small group of like-minded individuals.  “The most unified and best organized were the Fabians.  And among them the most untiring and resourceful propagandist was Shaw.”

George Bernard Shaw (26 July 1856 – 2 November 1950) was an Irish playwright and a co-founder of the London School of Economics.

He was most angered by what he perceived as the exploitation of the working class. An ardent socialist, Shaw wrote many brochures and speeches for the Fabian Society. He became an accomplished orator in the furtherance of its causes, which included gaining equal rights for men and women, alleviating abuses of the working class, rescinding private ownership of productive land, and promoting healthy lifestyles.

From Decadence to Dawn

A lesson from our past; a possibility for our future…

I am reading for a second time the book by Jacques Barzun, “From Dawn to Decadence: 1500 to the Present, 500 years of Western Cultural Life.”  I am scarcely qualified to describe the depth and breadth of this volume – some background of the book and author will have to suffice:

Highly regarded here and abroad for some thirty works of cultural history and criticism, master historian Jacques Barzun has now set down in one continuous narrative the sum of his discoveries and conclusions about the whole of Western culture since 1500.

This book does not represent a passing fancy, but a summary of a lifetime’s work; Barzun was over 90 years old when it was published in 2000. 

Over seven decades, Barzun wrote and edited more than forty books touching on an unusually broad range of subjects, including science and medicine, psychiatry from Robert Burton through William James to modern methods, and art, and classical music; he was one of the all-time authorities on Hector Berlioz.

At 84 years of age, he began writing his swan song, to which he devoted the better part of the 1990s. The resulting book of more than 800 pages, From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life, 1500 to the Present, reveals a vast erudition and brilliance undimmed by advanced age. Historians, literary critics, and popular reviewers all lauded From Dawn to Decadence as a sweeping and powerful survey of modern Western history…

I can only add: almost every sentence in the book bears witness to the depth of one who has studied a subject for seventy years. 

As mentioned, I am reading the book now for the second time – the first time being several years ago.  I feel much better prepared to at least somewhat understand minor portions of the topics about which Barzun writes.  I will likely write a few posts based on the book, and otherwise use some cites from the book here and there in my writing.

But first, I – like Barzun – will take a detour.  Despite the title and time range Barzun offers (he begins his story with Martin Luther), he devotes a few pages of the book to the Middle Ages, a period of history upon which I have written a good deal.  He indicates that history is not as neatly divided or defined as the labels we place upon times and places – Europe did not turn a distinct chapter at the moment Luther tacked his complaints on the church door.  Additionally, he offers that the popular perception of the Middle Ages is faulty; much of what is attributed to the modern age has its roots in this so-called dark period.

Certainly you have noticed that the title of this post has it backwards – this is not the title of Barzun’s master work, you shout.  You are correct.  And with the background work out of the way, I will get to the point.