Tuesday, November 09, 2010

More thoughts on PC

In my previous post I put forward the proposition that PC was partially a product of Anglicanism. In this very good series of essays, author Ron Rozien outlines the impact of ultilitarianism on English morality. Sorry for the long quotes but it's such a good collection of essays and it succinctly summarises the intellectual precursors of PC.

For another, English Protestantism had experienced a seemingly endless ramification of new and divisive sects. As Willey (p. 6) pointedly put it, religious differences had reduced points of faith to mere controversy. Surely the Reformation's originators had not expected that the placement of faith squarely on the biblical texts would lead to so many conflicting interpretations. But disputed exegesis had in due course become the dominating reality, and the more conflicts arose, the more thoughtful men and women came to realize the necessity of judging matters on the reasonableness of conflicting views. Hence, a new spirit of rationalism was often the silent inheritor of Protestant dissension — much as it had been when Protestantism first assembled its attack on the Roman Church. Quite naturally, Catholic observers might look on Protestantism's story of diversification and conflict with amusement, and also with wonder that so many small groups might declare themselves the one true faith. But in England, at least, such diversity was not always viewed as an evil. For one thing, it bred toleration — many English thinkers, "seeing that men unavoidably differ in profound speculation," as Stephen put it, "...learnt to admit the innocence of error" (1902, vol. 1, pp. 75-76). Also, while detractors might focus on the differences across Protestant sects, more hopeful souls might look instead at what remained constant and necessary across all of them. In this way the very diversity of Christian belief set in motion more or less empirical quests for its essential and common denominators. By now, too, generations of Protestants had learned that the Bible was not altogether complete in its capacity to provide moral guidance on questions of everyday life or political choice. The Bible, after all, was made up of histories, of stories, of a mass of particulars and not of the general principles that the new era had grown accustomed to equating with knowledge in the highest sense.
In several important ways, then, Natural Philosophy or science spoke to the most vexing difficulties of Protestant faith. Science was universal, and could be expected to speak as truly to the English as to the Chinese. Science was also general, and might provide a unified body of principles for the governance of the moral as well as the physical world. Science also meant rationality, and seemed inherently antiauthoritarian in its perspective. And if these advantages were not enough, was not it true that the most stunning achievement in Natural Philosophy so far had been made by an Englishman, Newton (1642-1727)? Thus did Natural philosophy in the late 17th and over the whole of the 18th century come to be regarded as "God's Other Book," the study of which was suitable, along with the Bible, for providing the hearts and minds of faith-seeking men with a clear vision of His character and will. It was to be sure a rosy vision of the relationship between religion and science, one undoubtedly made possible (as Willey suggested) by the
...fact that the findings of science, up to date, could fuse harmoniously with the presuppositions inherited from Christianity, which, though shaken by controversy, still remained as almost unquestioned certainties in men's hearts. For what had science revealed? Everywhere design, order, and law, where hitherto there had been chaos. (Willey, 1961, p. 5)
.....................
Protestantism's troubles, science's ascendancy, the century's taste for Natural Theology and distaste for Hell — all were parts of the general intellectual climate of the English eighteenth century. Whether one looked at God (Walker, 1964), at Nature (Willey, 1961), or at man (Sheriff, 1982), benevolence and good-naturedness abounded. As Willey put it (p. 10), the century lost its taste for the tragic sense of life. Naturally, there were detractors, critics, and renegades to this movement of thought as well, but even in disagreement they were obliged to speak in the vocabularies most men used. Nothing said so far differentiates utilitarian thought from a broader field of philosophical opinion. What was it then — besides the happiness principle — that defined and united utilitarians? What differentiated them from others?
Utilitarianism descended from a great tradition of English moral philosophy that stretched back to the Reformation (My discussion is based on Whewell (1858) and Stephen (1902, vol. 2.) One of the chief consequences of the Protestant Reformation had been the implication that parishioners' relationships to God would now be much more direct. The priestly intermediary had been removed and the confessional had gone with him. Lacking both, Protestantism was obliged to take a fresh perspective on sin and the events of the human conscience. If clergy could neither absolve sin nor clear consciences, what was their appropriate function to be? Perhaps the best that could be offered was moral instruction — which is to say, lessons in how to control oneself. The prevention of sin would have to replace its repentance. Since the provider of such instruction had no special authority or link with God, it followed that in moral matters "he was obliged to give his proofs as well as his results" (Whewell, p. 3). These considerations seem to have provided the foundations for English moral philosophy.
The earliest writings in this tradition were "casuistries" — detailed compendiums of cases in which right conduct was unclear. An early example of such work was entitled The Whole Treatise of Cases of Conscience, distinguished into three books, taught and delivered by Mr. W. Perkins, published about 1600. The historical tendency of such literature was to move from issues of conduct to issues of conscience. There was a preference for the happenings of the mind, thus anticipating a long English preoccupation with subjective sensibilities. One reason for this focus was the Protestant conviction that the conscience provided a person's direct link with God's moral sentiments. Conscience, thus, came to be the ultimate test of good and evil. Yet another tendency moved this literature away from case-by-case commentaries and toward generalized principles of right conduct — that is to say, toward "Moral Philosophy." Whewell saw the seventeenth century as the zenith of these trends: he terms it, "the Epoch of the acknowledged authority of Conscience as the ground of Morality" (p. 10).
Hobbes shocked contemporary opinion with the notion that this moral sense, so revered by English moralists, might simply be the product of men's fear of one another. But it was John Locke who provided the starting place for the utilitarian branch of ethical thought. Locke's singular contribution was his exclusion of innate ideas from the human conscience — with them went innate moral ideas as well. Locke could find only the desire for happiness and the aversion of pain in the human mind — a sort of proto-utilitarianism. His embargo on innate ideas laid down challenge to subsequent English moralists: Could the moral feeling — which gives us approbation for the honorable act and hostility toward evil — be accounted for without recourse to innate ideas? In a broad sense the conflict here is between Locke's unwavering empiricism and the legacy of a Protestant commitment to direct communication between man and God.
Locke would win. Utilitarianism's point of departure from this tradition turned on the question of innate moral ideas. Gay's essay (1731) is the most convenient starting place. Surely there has never been an essay less likely to win a solid place in the history of ideas than John Gay's "Dissertation Concerning the Fundamental Principle of Virtue and Morality," for it was (1) published as a preface to someone else's book (Edmund Law's translation of King's Latin Essay on the Origin of Evil [1731]); (2) published anonymously; (3) Gay's only published work; (4) quite short; and (5) inclined to be overlooked by subsequent utilitarian writers who owed it acknowledgment. In any event, Gay lighted the way toward a Lockean/Utilitarian solution to the "moral sense" problem.
He began with with the universal utilitarian assumption of a Radically Benevolent God, in a passage I have already cited. A variety of themes may be read into Gay's paper, but the important line concerns his handling of one crucial question: How is it that men come to attach approbation or opprobrium immediately upon witnessing an action. The problem was this: Gay believed that happiness flowed from virtuous action. Thus, men's enlightened reason, alone, might lead them to be virtuous. But Gay was aware, too, that men experienced feelings of approbation or opprobrium when they witnessed actions that could have no bearing on their own happiness. Also, one might feel good about his own act without knowledge of its future payoff in happiness. How did men come to feel these emotions? Gay stated the problem thus:
the generality of mankind do approve of virtue, or rather virtuous actions, without being able to give any reason for their approbation; and also, that some pursue it without knowing that it tends to their own private happiness.
Here we have the phenomenon that the "moral sense" had in the past been called upon to account for. In a sense, Gay has already solved the fundamental Lockean problem. What Locke saw as the non-answers of happiness and pain, Gay has invested with moral implications. In Gay's hands, happiness and pain become moral loadstones. For Gay, God places happiness in men so that they will know how to behave, and men who follow the happiness loadstone, then, make themselves and their communities happy. This is theory distilled from a thickly theological brew. All that remains for Gay is to answer how men sense the virtue in action (which is to say, the happiness it will produce) when they cannot know or anticipate the happiness reward.
Gay's answer is that men come to associate the pleasurable rewards of past experience with the anticipated consequences of future action or action merely observed in others. He wrote:
We first perceive or imagine some real good, i.e. fitness to promote our natural happiness, in those things which we love and approve of. Hence...we annex pleasure to those things. Hence those things and pleasure are so tied together and will also occur. And the association remains even after that which at first gave them the connection is quite forgot, or perhaps does not exist, but the contrary (p. 783).
Gay gives the example of money: Men may start out in life desiring the things money can buy, but will in the end come to enjoy the acquisition of money for its own sake. He tells us that
...they join money and happiness immediately together, and content themselves with the fantastical pleasure of having it, and make that which was at first pursued only as a means, be to them a real end, and what their real happiness or misery consists in. Thus the connection between money and happiness remains in the mind; though it has long since ceased between the things themselves.
Mild as these comments may seem to us, this was a radical departure in perspective for Gay's contemporary readers. It would set in motion a chain reaction going from Gay to the associationist psychology of David Hartley, to Priestley's abridgment of Hartley, and thence to Bentham and James Mill. The crucial point was that Gay had managed to provide an empiricist explanation of the apparently internal moral sense. The theory also provided just what was wanted by both secular and theological camps. When secular utilitarians looked back on Gay, they saw a solution to both the vexing problem of the feeling of an interior moral sense and to the equally vexing fact that this feeling might operate at times when an action's consequences were not in clear view. On the other hand, when theological utilitarians looked back on the same writer, they saw a God who (1) made happiness the direct consequence of virtue, and (2) contrived matters so that happiness was remembered or associated with the moral actions that initially prompted it. In this way men's morality could persist beyond the occasions in which they directly experienced virtue's payoff. English utilitarianism, whether secular or theological, incorporated these two essentials, the happiness principle and an associationist model of moral sentiment.
(Utilitarianism as Part of the English Moral Philosophical Tradition)

In a nutshell, English Protestantism began to fracture, and in order to maintain a civil society tolerance was encouraged and eventually habituated.  Under the influence of Utilitarians, English Protestantism began to associate happy "feelings" with goodness, and science was given moral legitimacy. It was these ideas that permeated throughout the enormously successful and culturally influential English  society of the 18th and 19th Centuries. The main "beneficiary" of this inheritance was the Anglosphere, particularly the United States. The military and economic triumph of the United States in the 20th Century ensured that these WASP ideals reached non-Anlgophone countries.

However what happened during this period of cultural transmission was that religion was effectively displaced by secularism, so what was in essence left was a structure and culture whose whole ethical premise was based on a morality of the sentiments. Remember, according to the Utilitarians, that which was pleasant was good and unpleasant bad.

PC= WASP Protestantism minus God.

9 comments:

CSPB said...

Great insight. Few look at long term societal evolution/devolution and trace the reasons for modern beliefs back to the causal event.

I have long considered the Protestant Reformation as the causal event for the redefinition of marriage and demise of the family.

This has resulted in our modern divorce culture and the belief that men are superfluous and oppressive. The unconscious belief that women are spiritually, morally and intellectually superior to men is pervasive.

JohnK said...

Philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre -- THE modern philosopher of philosophical history -- is especially good on these points, particularly in 'Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry'. [sic; English spelling] These are his Templeton Lectures, so theoretically they're just him talking. The trouble with comprehending MacIntyre is that you can understand every word; but how they cohere into sentences, paragraphs, and thoughts -- that's more of a problem! Definitely worth a look, though.

The Deuce said...

While I agree that Protestantism was part of the historical trajectory than led to secularism and then to PC, I think it's important to note that it doesn't logically entail this anymore than Catholicism does. It was the general zeitgeist of rebellion against spiritual authorities having unexpected effects.

Logically, a Cafeteria Catholic can "inventively interpret" the edicts of current and previous Popes just as easily as a liberal Protestant can do with the Bible.

And, in a lot of ways, the modern Catholic Church is more PC than most evangelical Protestants (take its "be nice" leanings on open borders and the death penalty, for instance).

The Social Pathologist said...

@The Duece

I think it's important to note that it doesn't logically entail this anymore than Catholicism does. It was the general zeitgeist of rebellion against spiritual authorities having unexpected effects.

Protestantism, in giving its adherents to right to think about their morality almost invariably ensured that they would think about it badly. Whereas the Catholic authorities never gave their adherents the right to think. This probably did have an effect in the dulling the intelligence of the faithful, but it stopped them from legitimising moral corruption. On the other hand, protestant approval of thought meant that the protestants were intellectually sharpened but more easily corrupted, especially by that most evil of sins, pride. (Incidentally, I think this theological promotion of "thought" went a long way towards accelerating Protestant economic and scientific development.)

And, in a lot of ways, the modern Catholic Church is more PC than most evangelical Protestants (take its "be nice" leanings on open borders and the death penalty, for instance).

I agree, that's why I made the distinction between Anglicans and fundamentalists. The evangelical group seem more "literally" anchored to the Bible and the scope for intellectual gyration is limited.

One of the things that you also need to remember is that the Catholic Church is a huge orginisation and there are many sub branches in it. The Eastern European branch of it is in no way as politically correct as the Western one. It is still quite nationalistic and traditional, but once again, this is a result of a confluence of other factors.

The American Century had a profound influence on Catholicism. WASP ideas permeated catholicity in a myriad of ways. For instance, tolerance, which was for years taught a vice is now a virtue. Personally, I think this a good thing, though some of the other innovations are regrettable.

Tom said...

Thank you for this series of articles. It really is quite fascinating.

bgc said...

I tend to think there were many steps on the path to political correctness - these are some of them.

I would also argue that the schism between Eastern and Wesetrn Catholic churches also contributed - as the West went down the path of scholasticism and into abstraction, towards reason and with less emphasis on faith and asceticism.

It was an exponential process, and the early stages are hard to detect because the size of the phenomenon was so small.

I think perhaps the first really evident jump into PC was the abolition movement which originated among English Quakers and spread to evangelicals, then to mass support in England.

Of course, everybody regards slavery as an evil nowadays - at least they do in a theoretical sense - although nothing is done to abolish it abroad, and even within the West slavery is tacitly tolerated by the authorities when it happens in some ethnic groups.

Nonetheless, if you look at the abolitionist movement, it clearly has many of the characteristics of modern political correctness in embryo.

But to reach the present levels of psychoticism and lack of reality testing requires a secular and intellectual ruling class, and also a large and influential mass media.

Locard said...

Great write up. I think you are on to something regarding Catholisism not being homogenous across different locals. I find Catholics in my locale are PC, many are pro abortion, divorce and usually vote democrat. Of course many also stand with the church's beleifs on these matters. Catholics I have met from other parts of the world (say Mexico) tend to be more in line with church doctrine.

The Social Pathologist said...

@bgc

would also argue that the schism between Eastern and Western Catholic churches also contributed - as the West went down the path of scholasticism and into abstraction, towards reason and with less emphasis on faith and asceticism.

Sorry for taking so long to reply. I think each strain of Christianity is susceptible to certain particular mental pathologies.

The Quakers are nice people.

if you look at the abolitionist movement, it clearly has many of the characteristics of modern political correctness in embryo.

Yes, but I don't think it's Quakerism per se that was the problem. Rather, the Quakers were the first to develop an approach that worked particularly well within the Anglo-protestant cultural "structure". The Quakers would never have been so successful in Russia or Italy for that matter. Their approach is so contrary to the mindset of those people.

But to reach the present levels of psychoticism and lack of reality testing requires a secular and intellectual ruling class,

I'd disagree, PC is a typical British "fit of morality". It's not driven by a ruling class, more a product of an Anglo cultural expression.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Locard

As someone with an Eastern European Catholic background the habits of the Western European, Mexican, even African Catholics are sometimes a mystery to me as well.

Thanks for dropping by.