The Romance of Authoritarianism
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
The Romance of Authoritarianism
However, this romantic notion is strained. Every fairy tale (“romance”) begins, “Once upon a time there was a king (or a queen, or a prince)." A “President” won't do.
This distinction is mirrored in the difference between modern novels and fairy tales or myths. The novel (as my high school English teachers preached ad nauseum) involves “character development”. Elizabeth Bennet must learn that she was wrong about Darcy; that her pride led her into prejudice. Levin and Pierre must struggle to discover meaning in their lives. McMurphy must learn there are some things more important than self-interest.
No such struggle envelops Herakles, or Achilles, or Roland. They are born to their heroism; Herakles and Achilles have immortal parents, Roland is Charlemagne's nephew. Heroism is their birthright, not something they must struggle to achieve.
In literature, sword and sorcery fantasy mirrors mythology. Aragorn, Gandalf, and Galadriel are born into power and authority. The hobbits must rise to it. Lord of the Rings combines two genres: Ratty and Moley (the hobbits) meet the Elder Eddas.
The romance of authoritarianism is just this: we can abrogate responsibility. Perhaps, like Cinderella, we can marry a prince (with the help of our Fairy Godmother). Perhaps, like Aeneas or Helen, we will discover that one of our parents was a God. Then we can rise to our birthright! (In the case of Trump supporters this birthright is White Privilege).
The mythic world view is fundamentally conservative. We have fallen from Eden; the Gods no longer sire human children and walk among us (Greek Myth); the Round Table collapsed under the weight of modernity (the Christian search for the Holy Grail). It's no surprise that the religious are “right wing”. Modernists believe in progress. They believe that we understand the whole by taking it apart and looking at its parts. Romantics (and the religious) believe that we understand the parts by looking at the whole. Post modernists are proposing a compromise, and their trenchant critique of modernism has not yet developed an accepted alternative.
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: The Romance of Authoritarianism
I like the gist of this. Tho I'd be a bit blunter about the appeal of the 'romantic' supposed natural order underlying old heirarchies and authoritarianism. If the social structures aren't in place to improve your lot, the appeal of of religious or mythic escapism makes sense, and the appeal of a godly/mighty/magical/divine right leader is basically infantilising.Ecurb wrote: ↑January 4th, 2021, 11:45 am In the U.S. Propaganda in support of “democracy” has long been rampant. The romance of Democracy is embodied in the notion that any child can grow up to be President.
However, this romantic notion is strained. Every fairy tale (“romance”) begins, “Once upon a time there was a king (or a queen, or a prince)." A “President” won't do.
This distinction is mirrored in the difference between modern novels and fairy tales or myths. The novel (as my high school English teachers preached ad nauseum) involves “character development”. Elizabeth Bennet must learn that she was wrong about Darcy; that her pride led her into prejudice. Levin and Pierre must struggle to discover meaning in their lives. McMurphy must learn there are some things more important than self-interest.
No such struggle envelops Herakles, or Achilles, or Roland. They are born to their heroism; Herakles and Achilles have immortal parents, Roland is Charlemagne's nephew. Heroism is their birthright, not something they must struggle to achieve.
In literature, sword and sorcery fantasy mirrors mythology. Aragorn, Gandalf, and Galadriel are born into power and authority. The hobbits must rise to it. Lord of the Rings combines two genres: Ratty and Moley (the hobbits) meet the Elder Eddas.
The romance of authoritarianism is just this: we can abrogate responsibility. Perhaps, like Cinderella, we can marry a prince (with the help of our Fairy Godmother). Perhaps, like Aeneas or Helen, we will discover that one of our parents was a God. Then we can rise to our birthright! (In the case of Trump supporters this birthright is White Privilege).
The mythic world view is fundamentally conservative. We have fallen from Eden; the Gods no longer sire human children and walk among us (Greek Myth); the Round Table collapsed under the weight of modernity (the Christian search for the Holy Grail). It's no surprise that the religious are “right wing”. Modernists believe in progress. They believe that we understand the whole by taking it apart and looking at its parts. Romantics (and the religious) believe that we understand the parts by looking at the whole. Post modernists are proposing a compromise, and their trenchant critique of modernism has not yet developed an accepted alternative.
Yep. The things we used to be able to cohere around have rightly been critiqued, but post-modernism doesn't seem to offer anything substantial in its place fit for our relativist, globalist society. This is a serious problem. Meanwhile the alt right are appealing to our baser instincts in this messy vacuum. It's a worry.Post modernists are proposing a compromise, and their trenchant critique of modernism has not yet developed an accepted alternative.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8385
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The Romance of Authoritarianism
The rest of your post contains interesting stuff, but this (above) is the bit that tempted me to respond.
Our current understanding of science, and so on, is that reductionism has some significant drawbacks. Specifically, in the case of something whose function is heavily dependent on the interconnections between its parts, reductionism is an act of vandalism that delivers almost no useful information. Other things can be understood by splitting the thing into its parts, and understanding each of them independently, and for them, reductionism works great. N.B. it's the complex and interesting things that are more likely to depend on the interconnection of their parts.
So it seems the modernists are limited in what they are able to understand, while the romantics are probably right, at least some of the time, but the abandonment of reductionism leaves many thinkers unable to continue. So who is right? Both and neither, I suppose.
"Who cares, wins"
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: The Romance of Authoritarianism
Aside from other issues, I'm not understanding how any of the above is about authoritarianism.Ecurb wrote: ↑January 4th, 2021, 11:45 am In the U.S. Propaganda in support of “democracy” has long been rampant. The romance of Democracy is embodied in the notion that any child can grow up to be President.
However, this romantic notion is strained. Every fairy tale (“romance”) begins, “Once upon a time there was a king (or a queen, or a prince)." A “President” won't do.
This distinction is mirrored in the difference between modern novels and fairy tales or myths. The novel (as my high school English teachers preached ad nauseum) involves “character development”. Elizabeth Bennet must learn that she was wrong about Darcy; that her pride led her into prejudice. Levin and Pierre must struggle to discover meaning in their lives. McMurphy must learn there are some things more important than self-interest.
No such struggle envelops Herakles, or Achilles, or Roland. They are born to their heroism; Herakles and Achilles have immortal parents, Roland is Charlemagne's nephew. Heroism is their birthright, not something they must struggle to achieve.
In literature, sword and sorcery fantasy mirrors mythology. Aragorn, Gandalf, and Galadriel are born into power and authority. The hobbits must rise to it. Lord of the Rings combines two genres: Ratty and Moley (the hobbits) meet the Elder Eddas.
The romance of authoritarianism is just this: we can abrogate responsibility. Perhaps, like Cinderella, we can marry a prince (with the help of our Fairy Godmother). Perhaps, like Aeneas or Helen, we will discover that one of our parents was a God. Then we can rise to our birthright! (In the case of Trump supporters this birthright is White Privilege).
The mythic world view is fundamentally conservative. We have fallen from Eden; the Gods no longer sire human children and walk among us (Greek Myth); the Round Table collapsed under the weight of modernity (the Christian search for the Holy Grail). It's no surprise that the religious are “right wing”. Modernists believe in progress. They believe that we understand the whole by taking it apart and looking at its parts. Romantics (and the religious) believe that we understand the parts by looking at the whole. Post modernists are proposing a compromise, and their trenchant critique of modernism has not yet developed an accepted alternative.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: The Romance of Authoritarianism
If God is King, the universe is authoritarian (obviously). The question is: is this a romantic world view?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 11:27 am
Aside from other issues, I'm not understanding how any of the above is about authoritarianism.
Here's the Webster definition of "romance":
Clearly, medieval legends and adventures reflect an authoritarian world view (in both secular and religious terms). Whether authoritarianism is essential or tangential to romance seems a question worth asking. If so, wherein lies the romance of authoritarianism? If not, why are romances so riddled with authoritarian language and imagery?1a(1): a medieval tale based on legend, chivalric love and adventure, or the supernatural
(2): a prose narrative treating imaginary characters involved in events remote in time or place and usually heroic, adventurous, or mysterious
(3): a love story especially in the form of a novel
b: a class of such literature
2: something (such as an extravagant story or account) that lacks basis in fact
3: an emotional attraction or aura belonging to an especially heroic era, adventure, or activity
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: The Romance of Authoritarianism
A short definitions of authoritarianism is:Ecurb wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 1:02 pmIf God is King, the universe is authoritarian (obviously). The question is: is this a romantic world view?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 11:27 am
Aside from other issues, I'm not understanding how any of the above is about authoritarianism.
Here's the Webster definition of "romance":
Clearly, medieval legends and adventures reflect an authoritarian world view (in both secular and religious terms). Whether authoritarianism is essential or tangential to romance seems a question worth asking. If so, wherein lies the romance of authoritarianism? If not, why are romances so riddled with authoritarian language and imagery?1a(1): a medieval tale based on legend, chivalric love and adventure, or the supernatural
(2): a prose narrative treating imaginary characters involved in events remote in time or place and usually heroic, adventurous, or mysterious
(3): a love story especially in the form of a novel
b: a class of such literature
2: something (such as an extravagant story or account) that lacks basis in fact
3: an emotional attraction or aura belonging to an especially heroic era, adventure, or activity
"the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom"
A longer definition is that authoritarianism's main characteristics are:
(1) Limited political pluralism, realized with constraints on the legislature, political parties and interest groups.
(2) Political legitimacy based upon appeals to emotion and identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems, such as underdevelopment or insurgency".
(3) Minimal political mobilization and suppression of anti-regime activities.
(4) Ill-defined executive powers, often vague and shifting, which extends the power of the executive.
I don't see how romances suggest authoritarianism, even if we're assuming that they're assuming some sort of traditional monotheism as a background.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: The Romance of Authoritarianism
Strict obedience to authority is essential to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Obedience to the secular King is a theme in Medieval Romance. Mankind, after all, was expelled from Eden for a lack of such obedience.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 1:15 pm
A short definitions of authoritarianism is:
"the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom"
.
Aragorn, son of Arathorn, derives his authority (and his power) from his lineage as Isuldur's heir. Birthright authority is a common theme in Romance.
I'm currently reading "Kristin Lavransdatter", the historical novel written by Nobel prize winner Sigrid Undset, set in 14th century Norway. Kristin's "romance" involves a conflict between the authority of her father and her husband. I'm betting the father wins out, mainly because he's such a great guy, but I'm only half way through. Apparently the novel also involves the transition and conflict between Christianity and older pagan beliefs. This is a theme in Medieval literature -- I mentioned King Arthur earlier. The Fairyland charm of Camelot (magical swords, Merlin the magician) is destroyed by the (romantic?) quest for the Holy Grail.
-
- Posts: 429
- Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am
Re: The Romance of Authoritarianism
It seems to me that the tale of that Cinderella bloke is very far from romantic. Like many fairy-tales it is dark and twisted.
For a start Cinders must be completely psychotic to think it reasonable to go stomping around a dance floor in footwear made of glass. Some say this is a mistranslation, the French vair (fur) mistaken for verre (glass). But this is contested, and even so it doesn’t really help. Consider, this slipper, even if it is fur or something, was supposed to be an absolutely perfect fit. So perfect it wouldn’t fit anyone else. Clearly this points to some toe or ankle deformity so extravagant as to both require warped footwear and to fascinate the prince. Why else does the prince go looking for that particular foot? Most people are more interested in a person’s face when meeting for the first time, twirling round the dance floor, and you’d think a face would be an easier, more instant means of recognition than any slight perambulatory peculiarity. Just what sort of weirdo is this prince? What kind of conversation can any self-respecting man about palace have with a pervy heel who just stares at your foot? To become so obsessed with a foot on so short an acquaintance surely indicates some unnatural impulse.
And that is OK, each to their own and all that, but one cannot help wondering as to the nature of Cinders’ deformity, and issues of equality aside, since this story is mainly for kids should we be pushing foot fetishes at impressionable young minds? But then we must also ask, if this slipper fit so well, why did it fall off? And why did it not turn into a weasel’s foreskin or whatever at midnight along with the rest of the clobber? No mention. And running around the country ramming fragile glassy or sweaty, furry footwear on all and sundry can’t be safe or hygienic can it? There’s warts, verrucae and all sorts, and if fur then pretty quickly this footwear must have become horribly stained and started to stink like summer Stilton. I call that abuse of power. And what to make of a fairy godmother with a magic wand? To some extent this is fine since, in the UK at least, a godmother is usually supposed to help raise a kid in the Christian tradition, and we know Jesus did consort with fairies. For example in Acts we read of the opossum Paul (who is clearly Welsh) declaring candidly “I am a fairy see the son of a fairy see.” But a magic wand? They sound wonderful, but having tried to buy one on the internet I will never see Hermione Granger in the same light, never mind Harry and Ron. I submit this is a perverse and corny tale without a leg to stand on. It is also sexist and elitist. It is plainly bourgeois propaganda promoting that impoverished and downtrodden young working class chaps should take an unhealthy interest in rich men’s balls, and be willing to sell their soles for the promise of a posh frock and a free lunch. There’s little romantic in this authoritarian BS.
And I will be glad when the pubs reopen.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: The Romance of Authoritarianism
The first round is on me!
Cinderella emphasizes the arbitrary authoritarianism that often informs fairy tales. Why does the Fairy Godmother make the arbitrary rule that the horses, the clothes and the carriage will turn back into mice, rags and a pumpkin at midnight? Who knows? Why does Hades tell Orpheus that if he looks back Eurydice will return eternally to the land of the dead? Neither rule makes any sense. They are simply rules for the sake of rules -- a test to see if the beneficiary has sufficient respect for authority. .
Also, if the Dutch can wear wooden shoes, Cinderella can wear glass slippers. The part about the birds pecking the eyes out of the step sisters has been bawdlerized from modern versions of the story, more's the pity.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7148
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The Romance of Authoritarianism
Ecurb wrote: ↑January 4th, 2021, 11:45 am In the U.S. Propaganda in support of “democracy” has long been rampant. The romance of Democracy is embodied in the notion that any child can grow up to be President.
However, this romantic notion is strained. Every fairy tale (“romance”) begins, “Once upon a time there was a king (or a queen, or a prince)." A “President” won't do.
I refer a more critical and honest approach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_on_Democracy
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: The Romance of Authoritarianism
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023