Imagining "Imagine" : John Lennon's gibberish-filled anthem.

Daily Standard ^ | Joel Engel

[Hillary's Folly]

Imagining "Imagine"
On the anniversary of John Lennon's death, it's worth taking a look at the gibberish in his beloved anthem.
by Joel Engel
12/08/2003 12:00:00 AM

	Email a Friend		Respond to this article

TODAY MARKS the 23rd anniversary of John Lennon's murder by a deranged fan, an act that at once revivified the ex-Beatle's career and established his 1971 song "Imagine" as the official utopian anthem. For millions of people around the world, the song's three minutes of bumper-sticker slogans describe the best of all possible worlds.

But before the faithful gather in memoriam to light candles and sing "Imagine" together, as they always do on the anniversary, a few of them might want to stop and consider that the lyrics are hardly a recipe for universal bliss. Chaos may be closer to the truth.

Put aside for a moment the inconvenient fact that John once admitted he'd written "All You Need Is Love" as irony. Or that, as a Beatle, his most spirited vocals may have been on the group's cover of "Money (That's What I Want)," which begins: The best things in life are free / But you can keep them for the birds and bees. Or that, on his solo debut album, recorded a year before "Imagine," he sang: I told you before, stay away from my door / Don't give me that brother, brother, brother, brother . . . Let's just take the words of "Imagine" at face value.

Imagine there's no heaven . . . No hell below us . . . Imagine all the people living for today. Okay, let's imagine that; let's imagine six billion people who believe that flesh and blood is all there is; that once you shuffle

off this mortal coil, poof, you're history; that Hitler and Mother Teresa, for example, both met the same ultimate fate. Common sense suggests that such a world would produce a lot more Hitlers and a lot fewer Teresas, for the same reason that you get a lot more speeders / murderers / rapists / embezzlers when you eliminate laws, police, and punishment. Skeptics and atheists can say what they like about religion, but it's hard to deny that the fear of an afterlife where one will be judged has likely kept hundreds of millions from committing acts of aggression, if not outright horror. Nothing clears the conscience quite like a belief in eternal nothingness.

Imagine there's no countries . . . Nothing to kill or die for / No religion too / Imagine all the people / living life in peace. Hmmm. A single, borderless entity. No passports or customs inspectors rifling through your luggage. So far, so good. But wait a second. By what laws, rules, cultures, customs, and mores would we all be living? America's? Saudi Arabia's? Iceland's? Cuba's? Obviously, organizing billions of people from different traditions around a common mindset would require some serious coercion that progressives (many of whom will be out in force tonight with lighted candles) keep reminding us is not our prerogative--not even in countries with brutal dictators. And if there's nothing to kill or die for, then there's really nothing to live for, either--not equality, not liberty, not justice. It bears remembering that those young Englishmen who declared, in the 1930s, that they wouldn't fight for king and country did nothing for the cause of peace; quite the opposite. Lennon's own Oxford Pledge may warm the hearts of pacifists, but it's true music to a tyrant's ears.

Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can / No need for greed or hunger, a brotherhood of man / Imagine all the people, sharing all the world. . . . Let's begin implementing the third stanza's message by splitting up the royalties to this copyrighted song. Mrs. Lennon, I imagine, will be only too happy to share with the rest of us the proceeds from the semiannual checks she receives for its licensing. In fact, why don't we all participate in every revenue stream created by John's invaluable catalogue? No, even that's not good enough. John wants us all to own everything, so we're each entitled to an equal share of not only his catalogue but also every album, tape, and CD ever made--by every artist. True, in such an egalitarian world, there soon won't be any record stores from which to take home recorded merchandise, since the owners will have nothing left to sell and are anyway no longer the owners (we all are). Nor will there be anything to play or record the music on (assuming any artist still wants to record), since there'd be no one to build the equipment. Why should anyone volunteer to work in a factory making hard goods when everyone else is living in the poshest houses and eating at the finest restaurants for free? Of course, housing and food are going to be problems, too, unless someone volunteers to mine the quarries, hammer nails, plant corn, and catch salmon for the rest of

us. In John's imagined world, su casa es mi casa. So is su radicchio.

And the world will live as one. One what? Violent mess, apparently.

Imagine that.

Joel Engel is an author and journalist in Southern California.

[AmishDude]

Because it would be anti-social, non-productive, unfair, mean and would not make me feel very good about myself.

So? Why would you not feel good about yourself?

Because I care about the feelings and rights of others and (to some extent) their opinions of me.

They only exist because you perceive them. If you didn't perceive them, they would cease to exist.

Because if everyone behaved such, we would have anarchy and a failed society...

We don't need everybody to behave in this way. Just a few.

And because I imagine being in jail would really suck.

You're proving my point with this one.

No one is perfect,

What is perfect? (To coin a phrase.) How do you know you are not perfect? You can merely declare that all who deviate from yourself are imperfect by definition.

But most people try to do the right thing . . .

. . . because they have been civilized. If there is no abstract underpinning of that civilization, then it is merely a bunch of imposed rules that can be cast off with a stroke of the pen or a change in the zeitgeist.

All the more reason to behave in such a way that you feel good about the time you spent on this world.

Yeah, well that and $4 will get you a cup of coffee these days. How do you even define "good"? Suppose somebody said they wanted to save their neighbors from the pain of further existence? Were they acting "good"?

Not everyone is as selfish as yourself.

Yes they are. Everyone. Every single person.

Has religion ever done anything to prevent those who would "devour"?

Of course not. It's a baseline.

I still maintain that man is basically "good".

Really? Do you believe that when food is given away for free to the poor that the number of poor do not increase?

The bottom line here is that you are forming, in these posts, a rudimentary theology.

And guess who is the god.

[AmishDude]

I really don't believe that you speak for all of humanity.

Sure I do. Just ask humanity.

Roman law comes to mind, as does Hammurabbi, Greeks,

Well, you've got me. I ain't never heard of no Greek or Roman gods.

Egypt,

Nor Ra

China, Japan,

Nor Buddha nor Shinto

the Pacific Islands,

Huh?

India,

nor Hinduism . . .

All societies come to an end eventually, as I'm pretty sure ours will.

I don't know, 5000+ years is pretty darned good if you ask me.

[Trampled by Lambs]

The question you should really ask is - why is every great free nation in the modern world built upon basic Transcendent Moral Authority and every nation that is not has no freedom and those moving away from that foundation becoming less free, less "great".

Because those things work, for the most part. I never argued with that. This thread has really gone a long way around :). I do not see the things that John wanted us to imagine gone as bad things. But I have no trouble imagining a world where they were unneccesary.. as unrealistic as that is. But, we're "imagining", remember?

Freedom, Justice, Capitalism and personal/societal responsibility are built upon an idea of Society balancing Liberty and Morality. The world of Imagine cannot support that balance.

Agreed.

[stuartcr]

Yes, they had gods, but those laws were not written with reference to their gods. What society are you speaking of, that is +5000yo?

[AmishDude]

They had a moral underpinning. They feared bad behavior would bring disfavor from the gods. Legal stricture and morality are not one in the same.

What society are you speaking of, that is +5000yo?

It starts with Abraham. I'm not talking about a political structure here.

[gridlock]

On 9/11 the local pop station in New York put Imagine into heavy rotation. They got so many irate calls from listeners that they didn't play that song again for about six months! Nobody wanted to listen to this pile of pop-psych utopian BS on that day, and I, for one, still don't.

[LikeLight]

What does that have to do with anything I've said above? Of course, society should resist evil, from whatever basis it comes. Even as a deist, I recognize the difference because I have a heart and a conscience.

The battle (good vs. evil) rages. It's in every human heart. You obviously sense it, as indicated by your mention of your own conscience (who needs a conscience if there isn't an internal struggle between good and evil?).

I was suggesting that to blame religion for death and destruction is to unfairly scapegoat religion. Every civil institution is subject to a constant and whithering attack from people bent on corrupting it for their own purposes. Some institutions stand, others fall. Those with a fighting chance are the ones that acknowledge and take precautions against man's sinful nature from the outset (I would humbly submit that Christianity and the United States of America are two of these). Those that presume to serve an inherently good humanity are doomed to a "short, nasty and brutish" existence.

That's why the song irks me so much. It may be only a song, but it serves to indoctrinate the sheeple into believing that the world would be Utopia if only man were left to his own devices. But to blame governments and religions for man's downfall is self-deceiving folly. The reality is the opposite.

[Stone Mountain]

Instead of a thought experiment on the unattainable, why not on the potential?

Well, as you say, John can write about what he likes. And nobody has to listen to it. I just don't understand people getting so upset over it. Johgn was poetically expressing a Utopian ideal. As someone upstream mentioned, where is the criticism of songs like "I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony" or "Let there be peace on Earth." Where's the harm? I'm sure Engel could write similar pieces deconstructing these songs (Teach the world to sing in perfect harmony? But lots of people in the world hate each other. And in what language would we be singing? America's? Saudi Arabia's? Iceland's? Cuba's? Like to build the world a home and furnish it with love? Where would everyone sit? Etc, etc.) Songs like this aren't meant to be deconstructed line by line and applied to the real world. Particularly true in Lennon's case when you consider that the title of the song in question is "Imagine."

[CyberCowboy777]

I actually like allot of Beatles songs. I just happen to hate what Imagine represents (The Lyrics are clear IMNSHO). LOL!

I am all for the "art" of music and the ability to take us place, provoke thought and even challenge ideas - but to me some ideas are not for challenging - the ones I got right anyway.

I disagree with some of what you will find on Dark Side of the Moon - but I listen anyway.... a bit hypocritical I guess - but then that is why a Utopia as Imagine will never work isn't it!

[Stone Mountain]

it serves to indoctrinate the sheeple into believing that the world would be Utopia if only man were left to his own devices.

How does it do that?

[CyberCowboy777]

. . . because they have been civilized. If there is no abstract underpinning of that civilization, then it is merely a bunch of imposed rules that can be cast off with a stroke of the pen or a change in the zeitgeist.

Bingo! - IF man is the only determination of "good" (what man 'reasons') - then any man or group of men can change what is "good" - suddenly you have Nazi Germany!

[LikeLight]

I do not see the things that John wanted us to imagine gone as bad things. But I have no trouble imagining a world where they were unnecessary

This is not intended as a barb or taunt of any kind. I have a genuine question for you, offered in friendship. Maybe you've already explained this elsewhere on FR, but what was the nature of your bad experience (alluded to by your TbL handle) with people in the Christian church?

I ask because I see a world where Christianity is unnecessary as a pretty dreary place. Like dreaming of a world where music was unnecessary, or where breathtaking sunsets were unnecessary, or where physical intimacy with members of the opposite sex was unnecessary. I see Christianity as adding so much depth, beauty and richness to my experience of life that I shudder to think of a world in which it is no longer "necessary". But you have obviously not had that experience and I am left curious.

[Trampled by Lambs]

Ok, let's see if I can do this before my lunch break is over :)

So? Why would you not feel good about yourself?

I think I already explained this. But, basically, because it would be against my nature, against the moral code by which I try to live. This code, I believe, which is partly derived from the Christian beliefs the society in which I live is also partly "built in" and partly made up by me because I like to think about such things.

They only exist because you perceive them. If you didn't perceive them, they would cease to exist.

Exactly. I exist. I perceive them so they exist. Hehe, this is sort of like the tree that falls in the forest when no one is around, eh?"

We don't need everybody to behave in this way. Just a few.

You sort of lost me here. I think you mean that it only takes a few to act "evilly" to screw up the world - in which case, I agree. But religion has not stopped this, in fact, in some cases, it has promoted it.

And because I imagine being in jail would really suck.

You're proving my point with this one.

Perhaps I've misunderstood your point. I never claimed that my moral code was just created willy nilly from thin air or that fear of punishment was not a factor in my behavior - just that it is not the ONLY factor.

Yeah, well that and $4 will get you a cup of coffee these days. How do you even define "good"? Suppose somebody said they wanted to save their neighbors from the pain of further existence? Were they acting "good"?

I think "good" is not the best word for what I mean but I am having no luck dredging up a better one so.. I define it as behaving in a way that is not destructive to others. To have at least some desire to help your fellows when they need it. Indeed, to not behave as you described in the post I originally replied to.

Yes they are. Everyone. Every single person.

This is the view I can not accept or believe. I could not live my life if I believed this. It is the view of the classic sociopath.

Really? Do you believe that when food is given away for free to the poor that the number of poor do not increase?

No. By providing such for those who could otherwise provide for themselves, you are not doing them any favors - it is not a kindness. It would also encourage more to opt for the free ride.

The bottom line here is that you are forming, in these posts, a rudimentary theology.

And guess who is the god.

You are implying that my "theology" is one of self-worship.. that I see myself as my own diety.

I don't see it that way. It could be partially right if, as I've sometimes wondered, if mankind is god. That if I worship anything, it is the brotherhood of man. Its certainly not me. I am insigificant except to myself and those who love me.. (yeah, there are a few :) ).

.. and I am out of time. The parts I didn't quote are ommited because I didn't understand them or because they didn't really seem to conflict with my own argument.

I probably will be unable to reply again but, have at it. Oh and thanks! :)

[CyberCowboy777]

189 fits as a response to you as well.

Thanks for the discussion.

[Stone Mountain]

I am all for the "art" of music and the ability to take us place, provoke thought and even challenge ideas - but to me some ideas are not for challenging - the ones I got right anyway.

I think all ideas can and should be challenged. The good ideas will win out.

I disagree with some of what you will find on Dark Side of the Moon - but I listen anyway....

What? How can anyone disagree with "And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes I'll see you on the dark side of the moon?" : )


(I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad...)

[CyberCowboy777]

You sort of lost me here. I think you mean that it only takes a few to act "evilly" to screw up the world - in which case, I agree. But religion has not stopped this, in fact, in some cases, it has promoted it.

Religion or better a Western Civilization built upon a Transcendent Moral Authority is why we fight or can even define "evil". WWII would never have been fought had we decided to shake loose our binding to a Morality greater than our own reason.

[Hildy]

You think ALL Beetles fan are deranged? What are you, like 90 years old? The Beetles revolutionized music and I just can't imagine what music would be like without them. You don't like the songs, YESTERDAY? MICHELLE? IN MY LIFE? Talk about a closed mind.

[CyberCowboy777]

I think all ideas can and should be challenged. The good ideas will win out.

I'll agree and then submit that the Ideas challenged in Imagine have already won out and you simply have a man rehashing what we all figured out long ago. Not very "Edgy" is it?

[wireman]

The freakin' song is almost 33 years old - Who gives a rat's ass what it says.

The guy who wasted his time writing this story needs to get a life.

[CyberCowboy777]

Pink Floyd revolutionized music - before them The Beetles revolutionized music - before them Elvis revolutionized music - before him the many Jazz musicians of the '20s, '30s and '40s revolutionized music - Before them Muddy Waters revolutionized music.

Not an exclusive club and it is not necessary to like any one link in the chain in order to like what music has become.

To think that would be closed minded.