There is an interesting article on Karl Rove this morning from the Sunday Times. It is quite favorable, portraying an interesting and thoughtful man, whose hobbies include reading and stamp collecting (!). A further shock, at least for me, was that Bush2's favorite pastime is reading. He and Rove engaged in a 3 year reading contest while Bush was president. Rove won, and rejects Bush's excuse that he had a demanding day job.
All this of course flies in the face of the narrative all of us know about Rove and Bush. Rove is a cut-throat, manipulative SOB, and Bush is a former druggie/alcoholic hyper-religious idiot. I am fond of saying no one is as bad or as good as their reputation. Bush is not a monster, and Obama is not a savior. Even Hitler, justly reviled for his actions, did great things for Germany in 1933-36 that are commonly and conveniently forgotten about.
In socio-political discussions, it is too easy to deal in stereotypes and images rather than in and with individuals. The danger here is of two basic types. First, the demonization of the opponent pre-empts the possibility of hearing and responding to that opponent. Gavin de Becker makes this point very nicely in his book 'The Gift of Fear'. When we call someone a monster, or an agent of Satan, or other inflammatory names, we deny them reason and feelings. This in turn makes it impossible to take that person seriously, to hear and understand them, to appreciate their fears and motives. They're only monsters after all. No, they are ordinary people.
The second danger is less obvious but more pernicious. It is believing the story of yourself or your cause as portrayed by others. This can too easily become the narrative in your own head. You have now denied yourself the benefit of reason and self examination. Now everyone else becomes less righteous, less valid than yourself. They are not worth listening to, it is they who must listen to you. Once again, true communication is ended by stereotyping the self, rather than the opponent.
The story of an ignoramus Bush who stole an election by the manipulation of Rove is heavily grained into our cultural beliefs, followed by the story of how we were manipulated into war by a political team that was lazy, ignorant and stupid. Of course the reality is not only more subtle, but simply completely different. Every single recount done before and after the 2000 Supreme Court decision found Bush the winner in Florida. This includes openly democratically inclined newspaper recounts. Bush simply won, but no one wants to hear or believe that. The narrative of 'the stolen election' is simply too compelling.
This kind of behavior extends outside of the realm of politics of course, and there is no reason to believe that self delusion and the mis-labelling of enemies is a recent behavioral phenomenon. What implications does this have for how we treat history, specifically, biblically recorded events? History is of course told by the winners, so there is automatically a point of view introduced in anything we read. Let us admit this is valid, that history deserves to get written by 'the winners' (not always sure about that, but grant the point).
Did not past winners have every bit as much desire and even need to create a story that inspires the troops? Sure they did. In the case of Jesus, it is well worth considering the time lag between events and written records. Conceding a great point made by David Graham, that we can not be anything like certain about when the gospels were written, it is certain that the first copies we actually have date from the 200s, and that the composition of the New Testament was chosen by men long after events.
Did they have a demonized view of their enemies? Of course they did. It is necessary only to read their writings to get the sense of the intensity of the debate about canonical writings and heresy. Did they buy into their own story of their rightness? Again, most definitely. Why, then, should we not presume that the preserved story of Jesus contains within it every bit as much distortion as any other received truth? Distortion introduced over as much as 200 years before there was a settled canonical text of the NT.
It is quite thought provoking to think of Jesus as a contemporary social and religious person instead of the canonized Christ of the last 2000 years. For a person so upsetting and polarizing as Jesus certainly was, would there not have been many stories running around about him? Again, almost certainly yes, both by his believers and detractors.
Imagine trying to figure out who Karl Rove was 100 years from now, let alone 200 or 2000. The hagiography surrounding Washington reflects a better passage of time. Who learns today that Washington had a tremendous temper and foul language that he carefully checked as part of his public persona? Washington was so volatile that he kept on his person a collection of notes, ultimately published as a small book under the title he gave his notes- Rules of Civility.
Distortions as a result of vilification of the enemy and idealization of self truth are common now, and they have long been a part of being a person. History is worth reading not with retrojection of modern ideas, but with an appreciation of the unchanging nature of people, all of whom considered themselves 'modern man'. And all of whom canonized their heroes and leaders, and villainized their enemies.
Ted
All this of course flies in the face of the narrative all of us know about Rove and Bush. Rove is a cut-throat, manipulative SOB, and Bush is a former druggie/alcoholic hyper-religious idiot. I am fond of saying no one is as bad or as good as their reputation. Bush is not a monster, and Obama is not a savior. Even Hitler, justly reviled for his actions, did great things for Germany in 1933-36 that are commonly and conveniently forgotten about.
In socio-political discussions, it is too easy to deal in stereotypes and images rather than in and with individuals. The danger here is of two basic types. First, the demonization of the opponent pre-empts the possibility of hearing and responding to that opponent. Gavin de Becker makes this point very nicely in his book 'The Gift of Fear'. When we call someone a monster, or an agent of Satan, or other inflammatory names, we deny them reason and feelings. This in turn makes it impossible to take that person seriously, to hear and understand them, to appreciate their fears and motives. They're only monsters after all. No, they are ordinary people.
The second danger is less obvious but more pernicious. It is believing the story of yourself or your cause as portrayed by others. This can too easily become the narrative in your own head. You have now denied yourself the benefit of reason and self examination. Now everyone else becomes less righteous, less valid than yourself. They are not worth listening to, it is they who must listen to you. Once again, true communication is ended by stereotyping the self, rather than the opponent.
The story of an ignoramus Bush who stole an election by the manipulation of Rove is heavily grained into our cultural beliefs, followed by the story of how we were manipulated into war by a political team that was lazy, ignorant and stupid. Of course the reality is not only more subtle, but simply completely different. Every single recount done before and after the 2000 Supreme Court decision found Bush the winner in Florida. This includes openly democratically inclined newspaper recounts. Bush simply won, but no one wants to hear or believe that. The narrative of 'the stolen election' is simply too compelling.
This kind of behavior extends outside of the realm of politics of course, and there is no reason to believe that self delusion and the mis-labelling of enemies is a recent behavioral phenomenon. What implications does this have for how we treat history, specifically, biblically recorded events? History is of course told by the winners, so there is automatically a point of view introduced in anything we read. Let us admit this is valid, that history deserves to get written by 'the winners' (not always sure about that, but grant the point).
Did not past winners have every bit as much desire and even need to create a story that inspires the troops? Sure they did. In the case of Jesus, it is well worth considering the time lag between events and written records. Conceding a great point made by David Graham, that we can not be anything like certain about when the gospels were written, it is certain that the first copies we actually have date from the 200s, and that the composition of the New Testament was chosen by men long after events.
Did they have a demonized view of their enemies? Of course they did. It is necessary only to read their writings to get the sense of the intensity of the debate about canonical writings and heresy. Did they buy into their own story of their rightness? Again, most definitely. Why, then, should we not presume that the preserved story of Jesus contains within it every bit as much distortion as any other received truth? Distortion introduced over as much as 200 years before there was a settled canonical text of the NT.
It is quite thought provoking to think of Jesus as a contemporary social and religious person instead of the canonized Christ of the last 2000 years. For a person so upsetting and polarizing as Jesus certainly was, would there not have been many stories running around about him? Again, almost certainly yes, both by his believers and detractors.
Imagine trying to figure out who Karl Rove was 100 years from now, let alone 200 or 2000. The hagiography surrounding Washington reflects a better passage of time. Who learns today that Washington had a tremendous temper and foul language that he carefully checked as part of his public persona? Washington was so volatile that he kept on his person a collection of notes, ultimately published as a small book under the title he gave his notes- Rules of Civility.
Distortions as a result of vilification of the enemy and idealization of self truth are common now, and they have long been a part of being a person. History is worth reading not with retrojection of modern ideas, but with an appreciation of the unchanging nature of people, all of whom considered themselves 'modern man'. And all of whom canonized their heroes and leaders, and villainized their enemies.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment