Posted on 02/22/2003 5:53:52 PM PST by Ragtime Cowgirl
Resentment as a source of human action and thought has been around as long as the human race, of course, but we often overlook its impact as a modern social force. It is also in its own way more dangerous that a grand political vision like communism, because rather than presenting an alternate moral vision—even if that vision is warped and evil—resentment is an attack on the idea of morality itself.
The first modern philosopher to cite resentment as a broad cultural force was Nietzsche. In The Birth of Tragedy; And, the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche claimed that "ressentiment" was the source of Christian morality. Christianity was in fact a "slave morality" that turned the natural order of things upside down—the losers in life were actually the winners, poverty was better than wealth, and so on. Nietzsche’s assessment was off the mark, however, as noted by the German philosopher Max Scheler. Scheler, whose philosophy of phenomenology would be a major influence on the thinking of John Paul II, agreed with Nietzsche that resentment could be a social force, but insisted that Christian love was different from resentment—that it was pure and transforming.
Scheler’s ideas were examined and expanded by the brilliant St. Louis University historian James Hitchcock in an essay titled "Guilt and the Moral Revolution." Hitchcock notes that the rise of resentment in the United States is a sign not of the weakness of the country, but of its success. Resentment rises out of material wealth, the boredom of not having to worry about mere survival, which can lead to unhealthy personal utopianism and thus resentment when one inevitably falls short.
Furthermore, the success of America’s breakdown of social and class barriers has fired resentment. Whereas Scheler thought that resentment would be most intense in societies with class distinctions like England and peter out in societies without such distinctions, the opposite is actually the case. As Hitchcock points out, "Those societies which have gone far in the abolition of social distinctions merely invite more microscopic scrutiny of their structures." As an example, he cites the New Left of the 1960s, which attacked liberals more ferociously than conservatives. Resentment, notes Hitchcock, is a modern disease caused by the cure.
Yet Hitchcock’s most important point is that, in the end,
Political and class distinctions are finally not at the heart of resentment. Morality is. It is the claim of some, whether implicit or explicit, conscious or unconscious, to represent an authoritative truth which inspires the bitterest hostility. It might even be argued that all social and political claims imply moral claims and that is why they are ultimately hated, with political or economic grievances put forth primarily as rationalizations for much deeper resentments.
The protesters and, in general, the Left simply hate the idea of morality itself. They hate that certain moral codes are tightly logical and written on the human heart. No matter how much they fool with the language or talk around it, something will always tell them that abortion is wrong. (Hitchcock comments that the pro-life movement should be glad when their arguments are met with vitriol on the other side. The fury explodes because the pro-abortion forces know what they are doing is wrong.)
Morality means impersonal standards that can be applied individually, and standards mean falling short—and falling short means giving up on utopian dreams. The resentment at the very human condition is fed by America’s enormous wealth, which has given the protestors way too much time on their hands to think about how miserable they are, and the culture of the therapeutic, which puts a premium on expression. This repeal of reticence makes things worse even as it causes guilt in the process, since, as Hitchcock says, "People continue to sense that certain forbidden feelings should never have been acted out." It’s more than likely that protesters who compare Bush to Hitler do realize that it’s a ridiculous and vile thing to say. Somewhere deep down they feel guilt, which fuels more anger at humanity’s moral code. They then hate even more. It is self-perpetuating.
With this understanding in mind, the rhetoric and hysteria of the protesters comes into sharp relief. Their problem is not with the immorality of Saddam Hussein—thus the absence of anti-Saddam signs—but with the morality of George W. Bush, or indeed any morality. Paradoxically, it is the very freedom that these people enjoy, coupled with the culture that tells them that reticence is unhealthy, that makes their hostility that much greater. What is so bizarre is the fact that the heat of the rhetoric and resentment rises as America becomes more and more open and tolerant.
This interplay of resentment and the therapeutic is in evidence virtually every time one wades into American culture, and accounts, I think, for the success of conservative radio and television. What is a rapper, with his self-justification and insistence that self-expression trumps morality, but the apotheosis of resentment? The Left is really not much more than a collection of the aggrieved, whose resentment seems to grow with each progressive accomplishment. For Jesse Jackson it will forever be Selma 1965—actually, it will be worse. Again, Jackson and his crowd are not as much for something as against something. As J. Bottum said in the Weekly Standard about the radical poets who attempted to turn a White House poetry gathering into a left-wing rally, there is an "againstness" to their very essence.
This is what makes for those surreal moments on conservative radio and television when one of the Resenters is caught in the trap of his or her own philosophy. Is Saddam evil? a conservative asks a protestor. The response is always a perfunctory nod to Saddam’s tyranny and a rush to get to the real problem: George W. Bush. The mainstream media simply won’t ask the questions that the conservatives will—the kind of morality-based questions that most Americans outside of New York and Hollywood would ask. Thus outspoken moralist Bill O’Reilly on Fox News Channel trounces his competitor Phil Donahue, a liberal Resenter of the first order.
Yes, the views of Donohue and his ilk are too outlandish to have much relevance to the war on terrorism and its outcome. Still, the radical nature of their worldview should not be played down. It is humanitarianism based not on love of the weak, but hatred of the strong. It claims its own moral superiority while trying to demolish all fixed moral principles—and so, in the end, it cannot help but undermine itself.
For further reading:
Jonah Goldberg, "Al Franken’s Suicide Mission," National Review Online, February 21, 2003.
Fred Barnes, "Fascist Pigs!" Daily Standard, February 17, 2003. (Free registration required.)
Like you, I felt the article took a lot of short cuts.
For a more interesting view of the split, I prefer Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions, over the columnist here.
Your take does less to marginalize or dehumanize the other side, always a grave mistake when applied by either side. I have to admit, I find myself in puzzlement that some very traditional, but yet profound thinking, christians seem to not see the current world climate as I do. It is far to simple and seductive to view them as less than sincere or just dupes. It is a deeper problem than that.
Haven't seen your posts before, but will watch for them in the future.
Thomas Hobbes, St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Moses, John Locke, Ben Franklin, William Shakespeare, King James I, Sigmund Freud, Gustav Le Bon, Freiderich Nietzche, Ayn Rand, Søren Kierkegaard, Winston Churchill, Walter Kaufmann, Frank Channing Haddock, Henry Louis Mencken, Ambrose Bierce, George Patton, just to mention a few.
There is a reason the English language has an edge over other languages and Modern Western Civilization is a dominant culture in the world. The evidence of this is a comparison between former English colonies and other former European colonies across the globe. Which civilizations who were former colonies of European powers are the most succsessful?
Also, at the risk of sounding ethnocentric, of all the greatest social and scientific inventions, advancements in technology for the last several centuries - - what global demographic has improved the human condition in this regard more so than any other? The European male.
I haven't read any of Sowell's books, but have followed his newspaper columns with great interest. The Left tiptoes around him like they do around Alan Keyes.
You MUST read his books. The columns don't come close to the depth of argument he presents in the longer format. In fact, I've stopped reading his short columns, they just don't measure up to his books.
In addition to the book previously recommended, also try The Vision of the Annointed.
>>>>
Also, at the risk of sounding ethnocentric, of all the greatest social and scientific inventions, advancements in technology for the last several centuries - - what global demographic has improved the human condition in this regard more so than any other? The European male.<<<<eth·no·cen·trism- Belief in the superiority of one's own ethnic group.
Cultural -denoting or deriving from or distinctive of the ways of living built up by a group of people; "influenced by ethnic and cultural ties"- 3: of or relating to the shared knowledge and values of a society; "cultural roots"
Was this due to:
IF #1, then ethnocentric would apply.
IF #2, then culturalcentric would be a better term.
IF #3, then some lengthy term would be more accurate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.