Welcome to Quadrant Online | Login/ Register Cart (0) $0 View Cart
Menu
May 20th 2018 print

Anthony Daniels

The Ubiquity of Unctuous Pieties

An age of communication such as ours is also an age of logocracy, the rule of words and those who have mastered them, in which expressed sentiment is the beginning and end of virtue (and vice). Alas, it is not true that words are cheap and easy, at least not in the long run

DISMANTLEThe refutation of nonsense has long been a preoccupation of honest intellectuals, but to this noble task has increasingly been added that of trying to find good reasons for what was previously so taken for granted that no one had previously thought it worthwhile or even possible to question it. The unexamined life is not worth living, perhaps, but the too-closely examined life is intolerable. Where no question is regarded as settled, everything becomes a matter of contention, and hence of bitterness and accusation.

The recent dispute over Australia Day fills me with gloom not because I have any emotional attachment as such to the day—after all I am not Australian—but because it is yet another manufactured grievance (typical of the modern world), a grievance whose underlying function or purpose is rent-seeking by political entrepreneurs who claim they will lead their people, or clientele, to the promised land of something for nothing.

The last time I was in Australia I was forcibly struck by the ritual Pecksniffian incantations to Aboriginal ownership, or at least first occupancy, of the land on which events—the Sydney Harbour opera, for example, or the celebration of Anzac Day—were held. I doubt that I was the only person to think Thank God that’s over once the incantation had been read out and the event could continue as normal. This incantation produced in me much the same sensation as the bad piece of chalk squeaking on the blackboard at school when I was a boy: but at least the teacher with the bad piece of chalk did not claim moral superiority for having used it.

The problem with verbal gestures is that people often take them with deadly seriousness—language, after all, which distinguishes Man from the rest of creation, is a kind of gesture—and therefore these ritual incantations will one day be taken as literal IOUs. But the logic of appeasement does not work: every satisfied demand leads to a further such demand, which curiously enough likewise fails to satisfy or even reduce resentment. Of the staking of claims there is no end.

I do not mean by this to deny that the history of the Aborigines in Australia—as those of Canada and the United States—since the arrival of the Europeans has been, and continues to be, tragic. But having caused tragedy (or more precisely being the inheritors of those who initiated the tragedy) is not the same as moral guilt, nor is the wound to be healed by turns of phrase which are about as sincere as Iago’s friendship to Othello. I do not claim to have the solution to the problem, though I suspect that in the long run it will come only from full integration into modern Australian life and that in the meantime the enunciation of unctuous pieties will at best do nothing positive and at worst be inflammatory.

Anthony Daniels columns appear in every edition of Quadrant.
Click here to subscribe

However, breast-beating, so long as it does not lead in practice to any tangible self-sacrifice, such as financial penalty or that requiring personal effort, has its own pleasures and rewards. The first, of course, is that it allows the breast-beater to believe that he is good, indeed exceptionally so: for how can anyone who assumes so much guilt be other than a very good person?

Allied to this is the gratifying feeling of moral superiority over those who do not profess the same sense of guilt, or not to the same extent. This sets up a kind of arms race of guilt, or rather of protestations of guilt. Since everyone wants to be the best person he knows, he finds himself constrained to be ever more extravagant in his protestations. It is not even unknown for people to desire the end of humanity in order to save the fish, whales, birds and bacteria.

The greater our sense of guilt, the more moral we are: but also, not coincidentally, the more important we are. If we are in some way party to a great crime, at least we are significant: and it is far more wounding to our vanity to be of no account at all than to be deeply wicked. I have known many criminals, usually of above average intelligence but not sufficiently gifted to make their mark in any positive way, whose ambition was to be exceptionally bad or even first in their class of wrongdoing (doing exceptional harm is much easier than doing noteworthy good). Among intellectuals, it is not enough to be a citizen of a country that, however many achievements to its name, has done reprehensible things in the world: these things should be at least as bad as anything ever done, if not uniquely wicked.

The acme, perhaps, of this tendency was reached by Susan Sontag who, notoriously, once wrote:

If America is the culmination of Western white civilization, as everyone from the Left to the Right declares, then there must be something terribly wrong with Western white civilization. This is a painful truth; few of us want to go that far … The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, Balanchine ballets, et al, don’t redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone—its ideologies and inventions—which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself.

Sontag is reported later to have regretted her intemperance—with regard to cancer, that is.

The question with assertions of this nature is whether they can ever correspond to any genuine feeling, or are but the manifestation of a straining after feeling. To me, at any rate, they have the authentic ring of humbug, which is the besetting sin of our age (which, of course, is not to say that it has existed or been prevalent in no other).

Hazlitt tells us that “Sincerity has to do with the connexion between our words and thought”, to which he might have added feeling, for expressed feelings can be as divorced from true as cant can be from true belief. As if this were not bad enough, the complexity of the human mind is such that we can easily disguise the divorce from ourselves and deny that it exists, the denial leading us to act as if the false were true. I do not believe for a moment that Susan Sontag thought or felt of herself as a cancerous cell, for such a sincere thought or feeling is really possible only to someone with a mental state akin to Cotard’s syndrome, the rare delusion that one is already (and deservedly) dead or putrefying: and people with Cotard’s syndrome do not write essays, not even for the Partisan Review.

The grandiose moral exhibitionism of which the Sontag quotation is so notable an example (now half a century old, and therefore ahead of its time) serves another function in our moral economy: namely to divert the locus of our moral concern from the pettiness of our own daily existences to the largest general problems facing the world. It renders alien to us the Blakean thought that:

He who would do good to another must do it in Minute Particulars.
General Good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite, and flatterer …

This might appear at first sight to be going too far, and it would be a logical error to suppose that if the scoundrel pleads the general good, the person who pleads the general good is a scoundrel; all the same, the figure who uses his disgust with the general state of the world and a supposedly burning desire for its betterment as a smokescreen for, or mitigation of, his own misconduct or licentiousness within his own little circle is far from unknown.

An age of communication such as ours is also an age of logocracy, the rule of words and those who have mastered them, in which expressed sentiment is the beginning and end of virtue (and vice). Alas, it is not true that words are cheap and easy, at least not in the long run. You cannot continually proclaim your own guilt and hope to go forever unpunished, irrespective of whether your proclamation of guilt is sincere or not, justified or not. Plenty of people have been punished severely on false confessions, which are more easily made than withdrawn, especially when, as nowadays, they are grist to the mill of political entrepreneurs.

Anthony Daniels’s most recent book is his first collection of short stories, The Proper Procedure and Other Stories, published last August by New English Review Press under his nom de plume, Theodore Dalrymple.

 

Comments [14]

  1. Jacob Jonker says:

    Yes, Susan Sontag’s cancer has metastasised beyond belief. How, now, to deal with it? The body politic in the western democracies is riven with cancer. Cancer has, indeed, taken over the running of western society. What to do? Irradiation and chemo-therapy will kill us all. Invasive surgery is already well on the way, displacing the weaker members of western society by cultures inimical to the European civilising presence. That is a start, but a crude method since it cuts out the finer and more sensitive elements together with the cancerous blobs, whereas the better established and economically ensconced cancerous tissues and issues remain unscathed. The Right blood cells need to get their act together and start cracking the whip. First of all, the moral high ground must be taken. The Right, the Centre and the Righteous need to whip each other until they are purified of their weaknesses and perversions. The rot started at the head. The old guard lost the plot. The Establishment is now corrupt beyond measure, or redemption.
    The problem is not with the Left, or the Greens or the suicidal by proxy. The problem is with the Right, and with the would-be righteous. There is a challenge here, but fear not, in Australasia at least, the European will learn to swim, else they sink.

    • Jody says:

      You are trapped in a 1950s stereotype, sadly for you.

    • en passant says:

      Jacob,
      Do you ever read the nonsense of your own posts?

      “First of all, the moral high ground must be taken.” – just what is this ‘moral high ground’ that must be taken? Who must take it and at what cost? Is there one HMG, or many nuanced ones?

      “The Right, the Centre and the Righteous need to whip each other until they are purified of their weaknesses and perversions.” – have you ever thought of becoming an evangelical pastor shouting loudly phrases that mean nothing. You have perfected the ‘meaning nothing’ part.

      “The problem is with the Right, and with the would-be righteous.” – Umm, no. The problem is with you and your meaningless exceptionally long waffles. Increase the dosage of whatever it is you are taking …

      “… the European will learn to swim, else they sink.” – I love the meaningless of tautologies – in small doses. This last was one too many.

  2. Tricone says:

    “Of the staking of claims there is no end.”
    Indeed.

    There is, so far, no exaggeration of aboriginal deaths at the hands of white colonists that will be safely challenged.

    Starting from Henry Reynolds assertion of 20,000, based on taking the ~2000 documented deaths of settlers at the hands of aborigines and multiplying by ten, because … well, just because, I’ve since heard 40,000, 60,000, 100,0000.

    Nobody dares question.

    I remember a BBC travel program on central Australia with that renowned scholar, the likeable and ignorant Claudia Winkelman where she was walking with a black man about my age who said, “they came and killed, oh, 60,000 people” and then cut to a reaction sir of Claudia nodding gravely while that ridiculous claim (more than have ever lived in that area at any one time) whistled untouched through to the boundary.

    Thus is our history made.

    • Doubting Thomas says:

      Our esteemed editor of Quadrant, Keith Windschuttle, pretty much destroyed the credibility of Henry Reynolds and his claque in his fabrication of Aboriginal History. So plenty of exaggerated claims have already been challenged.

      • Tricone says:

        Keith’s excellent scholarship is a welcome counterbalance to the prevailing falsehoods, but it has had no impact on popular culture and media. If they know him at all, it’s as a ratbag

        A random example from memory:
        A notice at the Otway Fly and Treetop Trail mentioning William Buckley, the escaped convict who reportedly roamed from Geelong to Gerangamete from 1804 to 1835 with a local tribe. It says he left aboriginal society due to disillusionment at the decline of their culture due to encroaching white settlement.

        Being interested in Buckley I’ve read what little contemporary source material there is on him, and it mentions no such thing.

        Instead it was reported by his interviewers that it was the internecine violence in aboriginal society and deaths of his friends that had prompted him to leave.

        “What we know” is no longer good enough. “Noble savage” fabrication is substituted.

  3. Tricone says:

    “shot” not “sir”!

  4. Jody says:

    I’ve been reading in “Quillette” about the rise of ‘conservative postmodernism’ (which I don’t find completely convincing). I came across this paragraph is confirms something I’ve long believed about the rise of the progressive Left and its march through the institutions (and how cleverly they usurp speech for control and ownership!). They own, for example, “diversity”, “equity”, “patriarchy”, “oppression”, “equality” etc. etc. Here’s the quote from “Quillette”:

    “Moreover, this focus on identity and oppression leads to the understanding that everything is ultimately about power and who has it. Knowledge, venerable institutions, politics, and the economy are all conceived as forces which systematically oppress and repress the expression of one’s identity. Since this expression is taken as both the source of all legitimate knowledge and value, this is regarded as a very great wrong. The individual’s efforts then become directed against both removing these systems of oppression and placing one’s self, and the group one affiliates with, on top of the power hierarchy. This leads, in turn, to activism which is highly oppressive and totalitarian, since its aim is not the classical liberal goal of convincing others through reason and discourse. Rather it is to replace one powerful group with another.”

    That last sentence is the key to the whole movement of the progressive Left!!

    • Doubting Thomas says:

      Precisely!

    • Egil says:

      “That last sentence is the key to the whole movement of the ‘progressive’ Left!!”
      Fixed it.
      The left, in addition to “diversity”, “equity”, “patriarchy”, “oppression”, “equality” has also stolen/adopted the term “progressive”.
      The left is NOT progressive.
      Accepting their robbery of a positive term does not agree with me
      ‘Progressive’ or regressive are more accurate terms.
      The left is indeed about power.
      Their manipulating/theft of language/words
      should be denied them at every opportunity.

  5. en passant says:

    “I suspect that in the long run it will come only from full integration into modern Australian life.”

    This is the solution, but only if we consider the alternatives:

    1. Continue as we have, financing an underclass grievance industry for ad infinitum generations to come.
    This is the current plan supported by the aboriginal ‘leaders’ who take the most money and live well on it.

    2. Create a separate aboriginal nation within the Australian nation.
    Didn’t we condemn South Africa for doing this? What next? Laws banning inter-marriage to preserve the aboriginal ‘race’? Note that the ‘Nuremberg Race Law’ of 1935 promulgated by Goehring was one of the charges of which he was convicted and sentenced to death. Step up, please, those promoting apartheid, we need to know who you are …

    3. Set them free as a sovereign nation, TOTALLY independent of Australia. Passports, visas, tariffs – everything.
    Let’s see how living as a stone-age hunter-gatherer works out. A short, brutish and hungry life, I presume, but if that is what they want, why deny it to them …

    • padraic says:

      Well said, en passant. It’s funny (peculiar) to see the Left promoting apartheid – such hypocrites. Alternative 3 would not work. How could the activists and their white, self-loathing lawyer and academic controllers form a nation with geographical boundaries? It would be a Trojan horse that would destroy our nation. This group has an agenda with an end point model which we never see.

  6. Tricone says:

    Aborigines having been marrying into settler society since the very first years of European arrival. It’s completely false to talk of discrete aboriginal society, of “they” and “them”.

    The vast majority are integrated, but that integration has been progressively attacked and fragmented by identity politics and the self-appointed spokespeople that have used the fragmentation to seek advantage.

  7. padraic says:

    I agree, Tricone. It’s a small group of activist ratbags who are getting the headlines.