If you like this article, please consider subscribing to The Nation at
special discounted rates. You can order online at
https://ssl.thenation.com/sumo/EMAILARTLINK or call our toll-free number
at 1-800-333-8536.
The White Whale by E.L. Doctorow
In April 2007 in Washington there was a joint meeting of the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Philosophical Society on
the theme of "The Public Good: Knowledge as the Foundation for a
Democratic Society." E.L. Doctorow's keynote address was titled "The
White Whale." --The Editors
What does it say about the United States today that this fellowship of
the arts and sciences and philosophy is called to affirm knowledge as a
public good? What have we come to when the self-evident has to be argued
as if--500 years into the Enlightenment and 230-some years into the life
of this Republic--it is a proposition still to be proven? How does it
happen that the modernist project that has endowed mankind with the
scientific method, the concept of objective evidence, the culture of
factuality responsible for the good and extended life we enjoy in the
high-tech world of our freedom, but more important for the history of
our species, the means to whatever verified knowledge we have regarding
the nature of life and the origins and laws of the universe.... How does
it happen for reason to have been so deflected and empirical truth to
have become so vulnerable to unreason?
For some time now we have been confronted by a religiously inspired
criminal movement originated in the Middle East that advertises its
values by suicidal bombings, civilian massacres and the execution of
arbitrarily selected victims by the sawing off of their heads. However
educated, well-to-do and politically motivated the leaders of this
conspiracy may be, they have invoked an extreme fundamentalist reading
of their sacred text to mentally transport their rank and file back into
the darkness of tribal war and shrieking, life-contemptuous jihad.
So that history, as we look to that part of the world, seems to be
running backward, as if civilization is in reverse, as if time is a
loop.
And here? The scientists this evening may have to correct me as I invoke
the term "quantum nonlocality." As I understand the term and make
metaphorical use of it, electrons shot from an atom will mirror one
another no matter how far apart they are driven: a mile, ten miles, a
hemisphere apart--you look at one and you have a reflection of the
other, a kind of weird subatomic dance in celebration of the mimetic
proclivities of everything in the universe, is quantum nonlocality.
This is not to suggest that our waterboarding and sensory-deprivation
torture techniques, that Abu Ghraib and the incarceration in perpetuity
without trial of terrorist suspects at Guantánamo, are the moral
equivalent of 9/11. Only that a declared enemy with the mind-set of the
Dark Ages throws his anachronistic shadow over us and awakens our
dormant primeval instincts.
Apart from this uncanny synchronous spin, the domestic political fantasy
life of these past seven years finds us in an unnerving time loop of our
own making--in this country, quite on its own, history seems to be
running in reverse and knowledge is not seen as a public good but as
something suspect, dubious or even ungodly, as it was, for example, in
Italy in 1633, when the church put Galileo on trial for his heretical
view that the earth is in orbit around the sun.
I am not a scientist and don't deal in formulas, but as a writer I
would, in the words of Henry James, take to myself "the faintest hints
of life" and convert "the very pulses of the air into revelations." That
surely provides me with a line to unreason. And so when I read that the
President of Iran denies the historical truth of the Holocaust, and when
I hear the President of the United States doubting the scientific truth
of global warming, I recognize that no matter what the distance they
would keep between them, and whatever their confrontational stance, they
are fellow travelers in the netherworld.
Two things must be said about knowledge deniers. Their rationale is
always political. And more often than not, they hold in their hand a
sacred text for certification.
But, you may say, am I not narrowing this issue, politicizing it by
speaking of our President? In this discussion of knowledge as a
foundation for a democratic society, am I not misusing this forum to
broadcast a partisan point of view? Albert Einstein once said that even
the most perfectly planned democratic institutions are no better than
the people whose instruments they are. I would translate his remark this
way: the President we get is the country we get. With each elected
President the nation is conformed spiritually. He is the artificer of
our malleable national soul. He proposes not only the laws but the kinds
of lawlessness that govern our lives and invoke our responses. The
people he appoints are cast in his image. The trouble they get into, and
get us into, is his characteristic trouble. Finally, the media amplify
his character into our moral weather report. He becomes the face of our
sky, the conditions that prevail.
From those fundamentalist leaders who proclaimed 9/11 as just deserts
for our secular humanism, our civil libertarianism, our feminists, our
gay and lesbian citizens, our abortion providers, and in so doing
honored the foreign killers of nearly 3,000 Americans as agents of God's
justice... to the creationists, the biblical literalists, the
anti-Darwinian school boards, the right-to-lifer antiabortion activists,
the shrill media ideologues whose jingoistic patriotism and ad hominem
ranting serves for public discourse--all of it in degradation of the
thinking mind, all of it in fear of what it knows--these phenomena are
summoned up and enshrined by the policies of this President. At the same
time he has set the national legislative program to run in reverse as he
rescinds, deregulates, dismantles or otherwise degrades enlightened
legislation in the public interest, so that in sum we find ourselves
living in a social and psychic structure of the ghostly past, with our
great national needs--healthcare, education, disaster relief--going
unmet. The President may speak of the nation in idealistic terms, but
his actions demonstrate that he has no real concept of national
community. His America, like that of his sponsors, is a population to be
manipulated for the power to be had, for the money to be made. He is the
subject of jokes and he jokes himself about his clumsiness with words,
but his mispronunciations and malapropisms suggest a mind of
half-learned language that is eerily compatible with his indifference to
truth, his disdain for knowledge as a foundation of a democratic
society.
It will take more than revelations of an inveterately corrupt
Administration to dissolve the miasma of otherworldly weirdness hanging
over this land, to recover us from our spiritual disarray, to regain our
once-clear national sense of ourselves, however illusory, as the last
best hope of mankind. What are we become in the hands of this President,
with his relentless subversion of our right to know; his unfounded
phantasmal justifications for going to war; his signing away of laws
passed by a Congress that he doesn't like; his unlawful secret
surveillance of citizens' phone records and e-mail; his dicta time and
time again in presumption of total executive supremacy over the other
two branches of government; his insensitivity to the principle of
separation of church and state; his obsessive secrecy; his covert
policies of torture and extraordinary rendition, where the courtroom
testimony of the tortured on the torture they've endured at our hands is
disallowed on the grounds that our torture techniques are classified;
his embargoing of past presidential papers, and impeding access to
documents of investigatory bodies; his use of the Justice Department to
bring indictments or quash them as his party's electoral interests
demand.... Knowledge sealed, skewed, sequestered, shouted down, the
bearers of knowledge fired or smeared, knowledge edited, sneered at,
shredded and, as in the case of the coffins of our dead military brought
home at night, no photography allowed, knowledge spirited away in the
dark.
Now, I realize that with these remarks I may be violating the linguistic
proprieties of an academic convocation. I realize, in the tenor of these
times, that anyone who speaks of the broad front of failure and
mendacity and carelessness of human life in so much of our public
policy, in terms any louder than muted regret, is usually marginalized
as some sort of radical--that is, as someone so "out of the mainstream"
as not to be taken seriously. But I believe what I have described so far
is an accurate and informed account of the present state of the Union.
We must ask if this rage to deconstruct the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights has any connection with the prevalence of God in the mind of this
worshipful President. We must ask to what extent, and at however
unconscious a level, a conflict arises in the pious political mind when
it is sworn to uphold the civil religion of the Constitution.
The idea of the United States may have had its sources in the European
Enlightenment, but it was the actions taken by self-declared Americans
that brought it into focus and established it as an entity. America is a
society evolved from words written down on paper by ordinary mortals,
however extraordinary they happened to be as human beings. When
constitutional scholars speak of the American civil religion, they
recognize that along with its separation of church and state our
Constitution and its amendments establish as civil law ethical
presumptions common to Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
But if you have extracted the basic ethics of religious invention and
found the mechanism for installing them in the statutes of the secular
civic order, but have consigned all the doctrine and rite and ritual,
all the symbols and traditional practices, to the precincts of private
life, you are saying there is no one proven path to salvation, there are
only traditions. If you relegate the old stories to the personal choices
of private worship, you admit the ineffable is ineffable, and in terms
of a possible theological triumphalism, everything is up for grabs.
Our pluralism cannot be entirely comfortable to someone of evangelical
faith. But to the extreme fundamentalist--that member of the evangelical
community militant in his belief, an absolutist intolerant of all forms
of belief but his own, all stories but his own--our pluralism has to be
a profound offense. I speak of the so-called "political base" with which
our President has bonded. In our raucous democracy, fundamentalist
religious belief has organized itself with political acumen to
promulgate law that would undermine just those secular humanist
principles that encourage it to flourish in freedom. Of course, there
has rarely been a period in our history when God has not been called
upon to march. Northern abolitionists and Southern slave owners both
claimed biblical endorsement. Martin Luther King Jr.'s civil rights
movement drew its strength from prayer and examples of Christian
fortitude, while the Ku Klux Klan invoked Jesus as a sponsor of its
racism. But there is a crucial difference between these traditional
invocations and the politically astute and well-funded activists of
today's Christian right who do not call upon their faith to certify
their politics as much as they call for a country that certifies their
faith.
Fundamentalism really cannot help itself--it is absolutist and can
compromise with nothing, not even democracy.
I value the point of view of Professor Mark Noll, who speaks of the
"historical American merger of the forces of traditional Christianity
with the forces of Enlightenment." It is a serious misreading of
American history, he says, "to portray the tangled cultural and
political conflicts of our time as pitting the pre-critical hordes of
religion against the hyper-critical avatars of science." Historically
there has tended to be a religious accommodation of science, according
to Professor Noll: in nineteenth-century America, theological
conservatives could also be Darwinists. And even in the strident debates
of today, fundamentalists still proclaim their allegiance to facts as
loudly as their opponents. And theories such as intelligent design and
creation science implicitly accept the modern scientific consensus on
evolution while maintaining a confident belief in a traditional deity.
But all contrarian movements, like revolutions, devolve to their
extremist expression, do they not? The theorists of creation science and
intelligent design have marching on their right flank, with or without
their approval, if not pre-critical hordes of religion, a militantly
censorious, well-funded political movement that a President of the
United States has tapped into for his and their benefit. I am not aware
that American history as invoked by Professor Noll has a precedent for
this. Nor am I aware that the hypercritical avatars of the secular
scientific method have an equivalent hard-nosed political organization
behind them.
The President has said the war with terrorists will last for decades and
is a confrontation between "good and evil." Whether he means the evil of
specific terrorist organizations or the culture from which they spring,
his vision is necessarily Manichaean. There is immense political power
in such religiously inspired reductionism. Thus, no matter how he lies
about the reason for his invasion of Iraq, or how badly it has gone,
bumblingly and tragically ruinous, with so many lives destroyed, and no
matter how many thousands of terrorists it has brought into being, to
criticize his policy or the architects of it is said to aid the enemy.
The President's inner circle of advisers, who conspire in this
Manichaean worldview, have the unnatural vividness of personality of
Shakespearean plotters. While the original think-tank theorists and
proponents of the war have quietly and understandably withdrawn from
public view, the Vice President and the President's chief policy adviser
have stood tall--the first contemptuous of his critics, his denials of
reality and obfuscations delivered in the dour tones of unquestionable
authority, the second too clever by half, and because he spent his years
developing a theocratic constituency and wearing such blinders as an
exclusive concern with party power has attached to him, most clearly has
a future in the culture of antidemocracy he has so deviously and
unwisely nurtured.
A Manichaean politics reduces the relevance of knowledge and degrades
the truth that knowledge discovers. The past seven years of American
political life are an uncanny cycle we've slipped into, or slid into,
that foresees the democratic traditions of this country as too much of a
luxury to be maintained. We have seen, since the 2006 election, the
struggle for the legislative branches to regain some of their
constitutional prerogatives. They struggle not only with a recalcitrant
President and Vice President who impugn their motives but against the
precedents of the imperial presidencies of Richard Nixon and Ronald
Reagan, each of whom added another conservative shock to the principle
of separation of powers. Many of the executive practices today--the
blatant cronyism, the political uses of the Justice Department, the
evisceration of regulatory agencies and so on--are empowered by these
precedents. And so we have marched along from the imperial presidency to
the borders of authoritarianism.
To take the long view, American politics may be seen as the struggle
between the idealistic secular democracy of a fearlessly self-renewing
America and our great resident capacity to be in denial of what is
intellectually and morally incumbent upon us to pursue.
Melville in Moby-Dick speaks of reality outracing apprehension.
Apprehension in the sense not of fear or disquiet but of
understanding... reality as too much for us to take in, as, for example,
the white whale is too much for the Pequod and its captain. It may be
that our new century is an awesomely complex white whale--scientifically
in our quantumized wave particles and the manipulable stem cells of our
biology, ecologically in our planetary crises of nature, technologically
in our humanoid molecular computers, sexually in the rising number of
our genders, intellectually in the paradoxes of our texts, and so on.
What is more natural than to rely on the saving powers of simplism?
Perhaps with our dismal public conduct, so shot through with piety, we
are actually engaged in a genetic engineering venture that will make a
slower, dumber, more sluggish whale, one that can be harpooned and
flensed, tried and boiled to light our candles. A kind of water
wonderworld whale made of racism, nativism, cultural illiteracy,
fundamentalist fantasy and the righteous priorities of wealth.
I summon up the year 1787, when the Constitutional Convention had done
its work, and the drafted Constitution was sent out to the states for
ratification. The public's excitement was palpable. Extended and
vigorous statehouse debates echoed through the towns and villages, and
as, one by one, the states voted to ratify, church bells rang, cheers
went up from the public houses, and in the major cities the people
turned out to parade with a fresh new sense of themselves as a nation.
Everyone marched--tradespeople, workingmen, soldiers, women and clergy.
They had floats in those days, too--most often a wagon-sized ship of
state called the Union, rolling through the streets with children waving
from the scuppers. Philadelphia came up with a float called the New
Roof, a dome supported by thirteen pillars and ornamented with stars. It
was drawn by ten white horses, and at the top was a handsome cupola
surmounted by a figure of Plenty bearing her cornucopia. The
ratification parades were sacramental--symbolic venerations, acts of
faith. From the beginning, people saw the Constitution as a kind of
sacred text for a civil society.
And with good reason: the ordaining voice of the Constitution is
scriptural, but in resolutely keeping the authority for its dominion in
the public consent, it presents itself as the sacred text of secular
humanism.
When the ancient Hebrews broke their covenant, they suffered a loss of
identity and brought disaster on themselves. Our burden, too, is
covenantal. We may point to our 200-some years of national survival as
an open society; we may regard ourselves as an exceptionalist,
historically self-correcting nation, whose democratic values locate us
just as surely as our geography--and yet we know at the same time that
all through our history we have brutally excluded vast numbers of us
from the shelter of the New Roof, we have broken our covenant again and
again with a virtuosity verging on damnation and have been saved only by
the sacrificial efforts of Constitution-reverencing patriots in and out
of government--presidents, senators, justices, self-impoverishing
lawyers, abolitionists, muckrakers, third-party candidates, suffragists,
union organizers, striking workers, civil rights martyrs.
Because this President's subversion of the Constitution outdoes anything
that has gone before, and as it has created large social constituencies
ready to support the flag-waving ideals of an incremental fascism, we're
called upon to step forward to reaffirm our covenant like these
exemplars from the past.
Philosopher Richard Rorty has suggested in his book Achieving Our
Country that the metaphysic of America's civil religion is
pragmatism and its prophets are Walt Whitman and John Dewey. "The most
striking feature of their redescription of our country is its
thoroughgoing secularism," says Rorty. "The moral we should draw from
the European past, and in particular from Christianity, is not
instruction about the authority under which we should live but
suggestions about how to make ourselves wonderfully different from
anything that has been."
To temporize human affairs, to look not up for some applied celestial
accreditation but forward, at ground level, in the endless journey to
resist any authoritarian restrictions on thought or suppression of
knowledge that is the public good--that is the essence of our civil
religion.
It is Whitman, our great poet and pragmatic philosopher, who advises us
not to be curious about God but to affix our curiosity to our own lives
and the earth we live on, and then perhaps as far as we can see into the
universe with our telescopes. This was the charge he gave himself, and
it is the source of all the attentive love in his poetry. If we accept
it as our own and decide something is right after all in a democracy
that is given to a degree of free imaginative expression that few
cultures in the world can tolerate, we can hope for the aroused witness,
the manifold reportage, the flourishing of knowledge that will restore
us to ourselves, awaken the dulled sense of our people to the public
interest that is their interest, and vindicate the genius of the
humanist sacred text that embraces us all.
This article can be found on the web at:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080714/doctorow Visit The Nation
http://www.thenation.com/ Subscribe to The Nation:
https://ssl.thenation.com/
