Thursday, August 02, 2012

The ideal of the Gentleman.

John Henry Newman was an academic and Church of England priest who eventually ended up being a Catholic Cardinal. His importance in today's post is in this passage from his work The Idea of a University. The passage is important because it probably best illustrates Victorian England's ideal of a gentleman. I've underlined some of the important bits.

It is almost a definition of a gentleman to say he is one who never inflicts pain. This description is both refined and, as far as it goes, accurate. He is mainly occupied in merely removing the obstacles which hinder the free and unembarrassed action of those about him; and he concurs with their movements rather than takes the initiative himself. His benefits may be considered as parallel to what are called comforts or conveniences in arrangements of a personal nature: like an easy chair or a good fire, which do their part in dispelling cold and fatigue, though nature provides both means of rest and animal heat without them. The true gentleman in like manner carefully avoids whatever may cause a jar or a jolt in the minds of those with whom he is cast; — all clashing of opinion, or collision of feeling, all restraint, or suspicion, or gloom, or resentment; his great concern being to make every one at their ease and at home. He has his eyes on all his company; he is tender towards the bashful, gentle towards the distant, and merciful towards the absurd; he can recollect to whom he is speaking; he guards against unseasonable allusions, or topics which may irritate; he is seldom prominent in conversation, and never wearisome. He makes light of favours while he does them, and seems to be receiving when he is conferring. He never speaks of himself except when compelled, never defends himself by a mere retort, he has no ears for slander or gossip, is scrupulous in imputing motives to those who interfere with him, and interprets every thing for the best. He is never mean or little in his disputes, never takes unfair advantage, never mistakes personalities or sharp sayings for arguments, or insinuates evil which he dare not say out. From a long-sighted prudence, he observes the maxim of the ancient sage, that we should ever conduct ourselves towards our enemy as if he were one day to be our friend. He has too much good sense to be affronted at insults, he is too well employed to remember injuries, and too indolent to bear malice. He is patient, forbearing, and resigned, on philosophical principles; he submits to pain, because it is inevitable, to bereavement, because it is irreparable, and to death, because it is his destiny. If he engages in controversy of any kind, his disciplined intellect preserves him from the blunder. [From The Idea of a University, 1852]
Newman's idea of a gentleman has lost the power of self assertion, he simply rolls over when challenged and never dreams of challenging.  How does such a man respond to a challenge?

Some men are born beta by temperament, but others are educated into betahood. The cultural meme which facilitates this transformation is the Idea of the Gentleman. Victorian England, and its ideals, still exert a powerful influence on Anglo/Nordic culture, particularly the culture of the middle class. Now, by middle class, I don't mean economic middle class, but cultural middle class; the strata of society from which most of the thinking is done in the Anglo/Nordic world. In order to be admitted to this class, to be "one of us", a man has to adopt the habits and behaviours of such a gentleman in order to be classed as a full member. It's true that the modern gentleman is not as calm and effacing as perhaps Newman illustrates, but the emphasis on getting along and being non-offensive is still of pre-eminent importance.

It pretty obvious what happens when a shrieking harpie collides with a polite middle class man or woman. The shrieking harpie wins.

Always.

The problem with the cultural ideal of gentlemanly behaviour is that it is especially vulnerable to the "offended victim" attack. The attack is particularly devious in its effectiveness as it relies on a three prong psychological approach to destroy its opponent. Firstly, if he is of genuine good will, he will be horrified that he has caused offence and genuinely be contrite for his actions, self-censoring himself for the indiscretion. Effectively, though policing himself.  Secondly, the Gentleman victim of the attack is made to feel as if he has acted as in culturally inferior sort of way, marking him out as one of the declasse, especially if there is a strong "redneck like" like association with his gaffe.  His efforts to maintain social standing lead him to immediately apologise. Should the victim doubt his sincerity he will redouble his efforts just to maintain social standing. Thirdly,with most modern left wing social causes are on the nose with the proles, their support of our hapless gentleman will further prove his prole associations.  Support of the NRA does not win you approval with the SWPL crowd.

Traditionalists take note.

Now, with regard to the proles, their simplicity and lack of "gentlemanly manners" gives them a certain forthrightness which conservative commentators mistake as some form "native goodness" which it isn't. It also leads to some conservatives having suspicions of the refined and cultured life; seeing high culture as a corruption of simplistic rustic goodness. However, the conservatives with prole sympathies seem to forget that the aversion to gay perversion is not moral but aesthetic. Their psychological revulsion to homosexuality is as animalistic as their embrace of heterosexual promiscuity. Their innate morality is biologically utilitarian and their support or opposition to any cause is in proportion to its agreement with their biological desire. Joe average is not necessarily the Conservative's friend.



10 comments:

mdavid said...

However, the conservatives with prole sympathies seem to forget that the aversion to gay perversion is not moral but aesthetic. Their psychological revulsion to homosexuality is as animalistic as their embrace of heterosexual promiscuity. Their innate morality is biologically utilitarian and their support or opposition to any cause is in proportion to its agreement with their biological desire. Joe average is not necessarily the Conservative's friend.

I disagree with this. Here's why:

1) There is a huge difference between heterosexual promiscuity and homosexuality. One is taking the good (normal monogomous sex) and exceeding healthy limits. The other, homosexuality, is inherently disordered from the start and naturally repulsive for biological reasons (see AIDS & Sodom for the importance of public outcry against homosexual acts). These two things, heterosexual promiscuity and homosexuality, are like comparing eating grubs and eating sh*t. One ain't good but you can get by, the other will kill you.

2) The proles you decry are actually closer to the truth than elite gentlemen who are not extroverted about the excessive wrongness of gay sex when compared to other sexual sin. Being of lower intellectual mettle, the prole is desparate to crush the evil around them as they will suffer for it. The gents, however, oft live in the ivory tower because they can use their brains to avoid the consequences of public moral decline. Were I the Diety, the pnishment for the "good" elite who were blase about natural law would be severe for this reason.

3) Proles are the conservative's friend when the upper class conservative has given up defending the masses and lives in his own world. And even when the upper class is doing their job at defending the proles from the liberal elites, the prole is never himself a threat to the whole structural order. Elite liberals, however, are.

Johnny Caustic said...

I don't understand. Is there something wrong with the fact that Joe Sixpack's aversion to homosexuality is primarily aesthetic? After all, the Good is constituted of three things: Truth, Virtue, and Beauty. Sometimes I think moral systems put too much value on Virtue and not enough value on Truth and Beauty. If Joe Sixpack objects more to the Ugliness of homosexuality than to its Immorality, is that wrong?

The Social Pathologist said...

@mdavid

The proles you decry are actually closer to the truth than elite gentlemen who are not extroverted about the excessive wrongness of gay sex when compared to other sexual sin.

They are. But the elite are closer to the truth in other areas. They value knowledge and culture whilst the proles generally despise it. Even though the SWPL crowd are morally rotten their aesthetic judgements are frequently better than that of the proles.

It's true that the proles are very likely to be against unnatural vices but they are much more prone to vices of excess and will be against any man who tries to curb their appetites.

the prole is never himself a threat to the whole structural order

Yes he is. In a democratic system the elites are a product of prole choice. The elites can only effect their changes through legislative measures, measures that have to be approved by popular vote. In a democratic society the people get the government they deserve.

The elites have only managed to push through their social reforms with the assistance of the proletariat.

@Johnny Caustic

Is there something wrong with the fact that Joe Sixpack's aversion to homosexuality is primarily aesthetic?

No.

The problem, however, is that Joe Sixpack's conservatism is only a function of satisfying his immediate instinctive needs. If, for example, an amendment favouring gay marriage could be combined with a law that promoted a large cash payment to the people, I think you'd be surprised at just how "unconservative" many of the proletariat really are.

Aethelfrith said...

Here in the States there is a perfect example of gentleman vs. shreiking harpy going on right now.

Google "Chik-Fil-A" if you're interested. If not, I'll give a summary--

The CEO of CFA publically stated his support of traditional marriage. This statement opened up a can of worms, with homosexuals, homosexual advocates and supporters of both decrying Dan Cathy as a hate monger and intolerant bigot.

On August 1, they had a countrywide Chik-Fil-A day. (I suppose the promotion was a free sandwhich). Despite the negative press on the liberal and mainstream media, the lines for the restaurants in many cases wrapped around entire blocks.

Through all this, Mr. Cathy has insisted that his company does not discriminate against customers or employees based on orientation, creed, blah blah blah (I tire of PC).

Chik-Fil-A's reputation as clean, friendly and pro family values and their decency to customers has not prevented (or perhaps encouraged) spectacles as shown in this video:

http://youtu.be/thNqs9fPcgM

Note how serene and professional the drive through girl is through the man's shrieking harpy diatribe. There is some justice in the world, though, as the company the man worked for fired him.

Aethelfrith said...

As I speak some of my colleagues are planning to go Chik Fil A to do public same-sex making out simply to offend people.

mdavid said...

Aethelfrith,

Your example is perfect. The elite "conservatives" don't care a whit about the culture war. Thank God for the proles in America, the last line of defense before the wall breaks. Ironic how gross fast food (the most prole thing I can think of, following broken families and destruction of the home) is out there defending traditional culture in a public way...while I sit at home eating home-made food in a stable family...and yet am not doing a thing in the culture war because I'm above it all. And yet every year it gets harder to stand up for what is right in my job. Proles are the only thing keeping evil at bay in the public sphere in America anymore, because they are too dumb to know the cost or have nothing to lose.

The Social Pathologist said...

@GKC

Blogger appears to have eaten your comments.

GK Chesterton said...

I don't remember what I posted...but I have a really hard time parsing the last paragraph of your post for some reason. I'm not clear on who or what you are championing. I'm willing to blame that on my poor parsing abilities but I feel like I just wandered into a German salon and that the sentences are going to start getting really, really, really long.

GK Chesterton said...

Specifically this: "that the aversion to gay perversion is not moral but aesthetic. Their psychological revulsion to homosexuality is as animalistic as their embrace of heterosexual promiscuity. Their innate morality is biologically utilitarian and their support or opposition to any cause is in proportion to its agreement with their biological desire. "

Are you proposing that homosexuality is moral? I don't think so. Or that beauty doesn't have moral force? I'd hope note as "(N)atural" things should be beautiful. Or that there is a (n)atural revulsion to homosexuality that needs to be conditioned on logic and (N)atural Law?

The Social Pathologist said...

@GKC

wandered into a German salon and that the sentences are going to start getting really, really, really long.

LOL

Or that beauty doesn't have moral force?

I'm not proposing that homosexuality is moral, rather, prole opposition to homosexuality is aesthetic rather than consciously willed.

Let me try to explain. The thought of two men being physically intimate induces a feeling of repulsion in the average male, while the thought of two attractive lesbians being intimate doesn't. Yet both acts are homosexual. Most men don't seem to mind hot lesbian action except when the lesbians become ugly; that's when the aesthetic revulsion begins.

Morality, for the prole, is ultimately based on what feels right or wrong. Whereas for the the Christian, morality is based upon what is right or wrong, irrespective of our feelings. That's why when the left want to push some morally dubious agenda, they cloak it in all sort of features which are supposed to generate positive feelings. Their proponents are always percieved to be attractive, friendly and just. Whilst every conservative is painted as bitter, small minded and physically ugly.

Several conservative propositions run contrary to our natural desires. For example, promiscuity is highly congenial, yet it is also morally wrong. Trying to convince the mob through logical argument that it is wrong is going to fail since the proposition runs contrary to their feelings. Actions which generate negative feeling in the proles, such as shame, is a more likely influence prole behaviour."

With regard to beauty, I've become more skeptical to it's charms as I have gotten older. Beauty is a good, but it can be subordinated to the cause of evil; the femme fatale being a prime example. Beauty needs to be seen as perfection of the expression of form, not necessarily an expression of caritas.

To illustrate what I mean, I put forward the question, "Can evil be beautiful". Whilst evil itself if the incarnation of ugliness, it can cloak itself in surprising beauty.

The phrase evil genius, for instance, does acknowledge a beauty of intellect subordinated to evil cause. The Nazi's still have considerable appeal amongst certain quarters, some surprisingly respectable, because of their style and elan.

This of course is the problem of the prophet. The proles are seduced by the beauty of the devil and think that the prophet is mad. I suppose moral maturity comes with an ability to both appreciate and yet see through beauty.