On Political Books

March/April 2012 Calvin vs. Hobbes

A novelist’s lonely struggle to recover the religion-inspired liberalism of America’s founding ethos.

By Benjamin J. Dueholm

This early Puritan ideal of unstinting openhandedness contrasts markedly with the present mania for fiscal and ethical retrenchment. In “Austerity as Ideology,” Robinson invokes the idea of freedom as a mutual gift: “Western society at its best expresses the serene sort of courage that allows us to grant one another real safety, real autonomy, the means to think and act as judgment and conscience dictate.” This “great mutual courtesy”— the modesty of metaphor here is typical of Robinson’s work—relies on mutual education, respect, and trust. “We were centuries in building these courtesies,” she goes on, noting that they are under fierce attack in the name of economic and security threats. “Without them ‘Western civilization’ would be an empty phrase.”

Education in particular is both central to this great mutual courtesy and, perhaps not coincidentally, a major target of the austerity disciples. For Robinson, education is the sine qua non of the American democratic experiment, “our most distinctive achievement.” Our fragile and historically rare commitment to educating everyone for free is not only the epitome of our egalitarian ideals (however poorly realized), it is also the cause of our culture’s excellence and dynamism. Robinson looks back with some astonishment, in the title essay, at the ambition of the Latin instructors of her Idaho childhood. It is no doubt a luxury to dedicate even an hour of a teacher’s day to teaching “five or six” students the work of Horace and Virgil. But as any luxury does, it symbolizes a set of values— in this case, the value we place, or once placed, on the potential for each mind to develop in unexpected and creative ways when exposed to the living voice of the past. It is not a value shared, for example, by Florida Governor Rick Scott, who wants to defund all the humanities programs in his state’s universities, the better to focus on engineering and business. “It is as if the very idea of a people, a historical community, has died intestate, and all its wealth is left to plunder,” Robinson morosely observes.

Such a sentiment is not terribly unusual coming from a noted literary figure engaging in political questions. But Robinson, who teaches at the University of Iowa Writers’ Workshop, is not simply weighing in on the rhetoric of Tea Party politicians in order to defend her guild. Indeed, an important implication of these essays is that American liberals have helped enable this plundering by forgetting or even turning against the peculiar genius that created these institutions of learning, provisions for common welfare, and mutual courtesies of civilized life. Robinson’s essays hinge, like her fiction, on a picture of human nature that is more capacious than contemporary American politics or American letters typically offers us. For Robinson, the human mind is—one is tempted to say literally—a microcosm. “The human brain is the most complex object known to exist in the universe,” she reports telling her students, the number of neurons in it exceeding the number of stars in our galaxy. “Earthly nature may be parsimonious, but the human mind is prodigal, itself an anomaly that in its wealth of error as well as of insight is exceptional, utterly unique as far as we know, properly an object of wonder.” In her novels and essays Robinson dramatizes this prodigality, this openness to unexpected and ultimately unaccountable actions and realizations. It is presumably the reason her characters, though variously endowed with ethics and good sense, are not villains, brutes, or stereotypes. Material generosity toward our neighbors, both near and around the world, begins with moral generosity, Robinson’s body of work strongly suggests.

Readers may be surprised to find one of America’s foremost Calvinists painting such a noble portrait of the human self, but that’s only because we’ve lost the language of paradox—unimaginably destructive, yet a little lower than the angels—that once charted our capacity for both good and evil. “We have not escaped, nor have we in any sense diminished, the mystery of our existence. We have only rejected any language that would seem to acknowledge it.” Here Robinson is referring to various ideologies, from evolutionary psychology to Freudian psychoanalysis to modern economics, that seek to exclude our own thoughts and intentions from the ways we understand ourselves.

It can be fairly objected that Robinson relies too heavily on that word “mystery.” She is sometimes too willing to leave a conclusion or a connection implied. Her style is never pedantic, but it is often dense, careful, and ironic. But these are all minor tariffs for the reader to pay in order to probe the arguments and the rescued historical data of a writer who has been orphaned by the culture wars. A progressive who is enamored with the past, a lover of her country who feels its historical crimes all the more bitterly for that, a devout Christian who is undisturbed by secular people and secular thought, an enthusiast of science who is vigilant against its abuse, a writer who aims her sharpest topical barbs at the right while more deeply critiquing the amnesia of the modern left: Marilynne Robinson can trigger the antibodies of all manner of readers. She does so in her apparently unending circuit of lectures and graduation speeches, gamely fielding the same questions about Calvin and predestination, Max Weber, and the reputed severity of the Old Testament, over and over again. The point of all this doggedness, on the part of an author long mantled in the kind of regard that excuses her peers from defending their ideologies, seems not to be persuading anyone of her own views. Rather, Robinson invites her largely liberal, well-educated audience to yield some of the things we think we know back to the realm of mystery, the great, undefined, unknown human adventure on which more of our politics hangs than we may realize.

As a book about who we are and what we owe each other, When I Was a Child I Read Books is more urgently political than any treatise on the shape of entitlement programs or the proper government share of GDP. Caustic as our public debates may be, they mask a convergence on the bigger questions that animate those debates. What Robinson calls “our tendency to create definitions of human nature that are small and closed” can be found virtually anywhere on the American political spectrum today. We are drawn to these self-effacing definitions—whether we get them from Darwinian biology, neoclassical economics, or postmodernity’s generalized suspicion—because they appear to be rational, scientific, or progressive. They liberate us from the oppressions and illusions we imagine constitute our collective past.

But what if we succeed in convincing ourselves that they’re true? If what we experience in both our own consciousness and in the palpable but hidden reality of another’s is just an accident or an illusion, a thin crust floating atop the magma of evolutionary adaptations or historical resentments that constitute our truest selves, it’s hard to imagine a future for the American liberal democratic project. People convinced of their own smallness will not know how to open their hands wide to each other.


If you are interested in purchasing this book, we have included a link for your convenience.


Benjamin J. Dueholm is a writer and Lutheran pastor working in Chicago.

Comments

  • Shokai on April 03, 2012 9:29 AM:

    Wasn't Thomas Jefferson an atheist? I mean, he rewrote the bible, taking out all the mystical gibberish. This country needs a new "founding father": http://youtu.be/fXrrDsiSzKA

  • Joel Wheeler on April 08, 2012 10:42 AM:

    "People convinced of their own smallness will not know how to open their hands wide to each other."

    This is a hypothesis, not a conclusion, and a pessimistic one that is not supported by the content of the column.

  • John Haas on April 08, 2012 1:31 PM:

    "Wasn't Thomas Jefferson an atheist?"

    No. Nor was he, strictly speaking, a deist. He believed in God, and in providence, and in God as the creator of human beings and as the one who had endowed them with inalienable rights.

    He was hardly an evangelical literalist, and he did distrust the Gospel accounts, so he clipped out the miracles and pasted the ethical-teaching parts together, which were what he valued.

    But, as important as was his jettisoning of the miracle stories was the fact that he did read--daily--his redacted Bible, and he did pray.

    Our difficulty is that there really aren't people of Jefferson's sort around anymore, so we have a hard time believing anyone could be an intensely spiritual admirer of Jesus without being an evangelical, or be a skeptical rejecter of miracles, and not be a thorough-going secularist.

  • Benjamin J. Dueholm on April 09, 2012 12:40 PM:

    I think the status of Jefferson's own faith is less important than the background assumptions of his culture, which was still very suffused with a religious attitude toward human nature. Robinson points out that religious people today are as likely as anyone else to embrace the definitions of human nature that are small and closed because they've become as thoroughly conventional as Jefferson's spiritual humanism once was.