Following a week where nipples on Facebook (link is actually a very good social commentary on Time) was all the talk, I found myself reading this:
Obedience to conscience is easily transformed into obedience to self, and the narrow path of rectitude quickly becomes a compulsive and scattered impulse to say and do whatever constitutes the "real me." The dignity of conscience descends into the banality of self-expression, alighting finally on that most unhelpful of maxims, one frighteningly familiar to Milton as Satanic advice: "Be yourself." As Milton recognizes, this is a counsel of despair, and the form of enduring obedience crashes to the earth, as ordinary veniality is sanctified as "genuine" or "authentic." If we choose to construct our dignity upon self-expression rather than inhabit it through obedience to conscience, then we are left with a very thin heroism of individuality for its own sake. Far from heroically "thick" human beings, the achievements of modern individuality disappear into the thinnest vapors of feeling, the spectral and labyrinthine delusions of the "real me." (pp. 173-174)
Yes, I just finished reading Heroism and the Christian Life: Reclaiming Excellence by Hook & Reno. And Facebook nipples is an excellent example of "ordinary veniality," the strident desire to post pictures that your own friends (pictures are pulled because your friends report them) find objectionable. It's not an act, it's a picture. If it is about the comfort to "be yourself," it's only about the comfort of certain people. It is also about creating a special case where self-definition trumps interpretation: Pamela Anderson may be skanky, but Molly Soccermom is wholesome because she told you so. If you think she's kind of skanky, and more than just a little passive-aggressive in asserting her post-pregnancy sexuality, go to your room!
The current Facebook rule (no female areolae) has the advantage of logical consistency, which neatly sidesteps the issue of individual privilege. An alternative rule is difficult to conceive: "No nipples except for in the act of breastfeeding." Okay, a close-up with the baby just out is the act, but it isn't what you want. "No nipples except for with a baby in the picture." Fine, hold up a baby at Spring Break and it's girls-gone-Facebook-legal.
After all of that, my "Limbaugh to Allport" post contained an existentialist sin too. It suggested that an individual can escape their place and time to create intellectual wholeness. Existentialism calls for commitment to place and time and through the honesty of that commitment to be able to act with intellectual integrity. The point was to not be stupid; I just missed an important step. On this point, Hook and Reno discuss The Plague by Camus. They have the book providing the message that "[t]he personal, however selfish, must have authority over our lives; otherwise, we become mere abstractions, shadows in the service of an ideal." (p. 194) They go on with the argument that it is in commitment to the lives we actually lead that we express the everyday heroism, which cannot properly be called heroism. That commitment to individuality, without leading to the absurdities discussed above, while submitting to God, is a challenge.
The authors claim that there is an answer to that challenge in The Life of Anthony. They write:
As Thanasius describes the scene, the voice of God comes down to the exhausted but victorious Anthony: "I was here, Anthony, but I waited to watch you struggle. And now, since you persevered and were not defeated, I will be your helper forever, and I will make you famous everywhere." (para. 10). This divine address has three components, each of which is indispensable to Athanasius's account of Anthony's heroism. First, God is always present in Anthony's struggles... Second, the triumph of God's grace has room for human enactment... Third... the triumph of grace in which the disciple participates merits recognition. (p. 138)
The authors mean the book to answer existentialist questions; they frame the book at the outset as a response to Nietzche. The overall structure of the book is absolutely lovely, using Homer, Virgil, Plato, Spenser, Milton, Paul and the saints, Camus and Bonhoeffer to make their point. The create a heroic structure where worship and the enactment of Christian living are irrevocably linked. Their last chapter, the prescriptive "reclaiming excellence," part of the book is absolute crap. As it had to be: any attempt to summarize the major truths of the tension between existential commitment and banal self-indulgence cannot be anything but, as well demonstrated by so many modern-day Christian calls to repentance. And by certain Facebook protests. That being said, the book has changed my life and the majority of it is committed analysis rather than summery. One of the back-cover blurb writers stated that it made him "rethink." Rethink indeed.
I am at a point in my life that I'm calling "chaste". It's not a commitment, it's just that for a variety of reasons I'm not looking for any. As I've experienced this phase of my life, it's different from that phase of life that I've come to term "virginity". It is not strictly speaking a dividing line of sexuality, but of knowledge, intent and conduct. In America we fetishize innocence to the point that child molestation is punished with longer penal sentences than murder. At the same time, men can honestly fill in online dating profiles "Turn off: power" without thinking that they have just negated their adult virility and advertised themselves as weasels unwilling or unable to match an adult partner. We seem to want men totally ball-less in looking, acting, and being. I've tried to blog about virginity vs. the chastity of fully committed adulthood, but it sounds like I'm writing about sex rather than about the possibilities of existential commitment. I'm taken back to a book I read last year, Keeping God's Silence, by Rachel Muers. She quotes Gemma Corradi Fiumaro, "...silence is radically different... from an expressive inability or stuporous state of imposed muteness." (The Other Side of Language: A Philosophy of Listening, trans. Charles Lambert (London: Routledge, 1990) p. 99.) It is. The more realized my adulthood becomes, the less interested I am in the phases of my own innocence.
Hook and Reno explain that this topic was a point of interaction between the writings of Spenser and Milton. Spenser has his hero cycle through his temptations, innocent. He arrives back at the Bower of Bliss and finds his temptation not only present, but recently satisfied. He burns it. For Milton, this is not good enough. He calls the virtue of Spenser's hero blankness, as opposed to true virtue which is to "see and know and yet abstain." Burning is not the same as walking away in wholeness. For this reason, Milton rails against censorship because it creates blankness rather than virtue. (pp. 164-165) Milton wants you to show your tits so that others can choose to look away. In the thinnest expressions of self, that makes you a means to someone else's ethical end. Ordinary, anyone?