Defending Our Heritage?
By Nathan Kahana
Today, many on the right fixate on the Western historical heritage. Rather than choosing a set of values irrespective of its historical context, they emphasize the cultural norms, aesthetic preferences, and traditions that gave rise to those values. Simultaneously, many on the left reject the Western historical heritage in its entirety; rather than condemning specific values within Western intellectual history, they condemn the surrounding culture and the traditions that produced them. The heritage with which both the left and right engage, however, is composed of intellectual trajectories that generate tensions in both movements. In order to resolve those tensions, the left and the right must treat their heritage not as a monolithic entity, but as an amalgamation of distinct values that require evaluation independent of their historical context.
The main proponents of the conservatism I describe claim to want a return to “Christianity” and a renewed focus on the Western historical heritage. These conservatives embrace the Western historical heritage because they see it as the root of their European identity; they categorize its culture and ideals as inherited wisdom that must be protected from modernity. But in order to embrace their heritage through such criteria, they must reject a core facet of that heritage: the value of criticism. The Enlightenment was marked by a distrust toward all forms of inherited wisdom that contributed to the West’s scientific advancement and its philosophical sophistication, characteristics that conservatives celebrate as proof of Western superiority. By categorizing the Western historical heritage as inherited wisdom, however, some on the right suspend critique of the values within it. In order to embrace their cultural inheritance in its entirety, this faction must betray the values of that inheritance.
One might argue that given the diversity of ideals within the Western intellectual canon, embracing the Western historical heritage does not require embracing Enlightenment values. If this were true, conservatives could embrace the Western historical heritage without betraying its values. Such an argument, however, would require that one pick and choose from the values of the Western canon: a task that would require a prior normative commitment. An ideology that claims to protect the Western heritage but chooses selectively from within that heritage uses its “conservatism” to mask and justify moral prejudices. Such an ideology cannot honestly use the conservative label to describe itself.
Moreover, a conservatism that seeks to embrace the heritage of pre-Enlightenment Europe without embracing Enlightenment values relies on a false separation between the two. Enlightenment values grew organically out of pre-Enlightenment Europe. The scholastics, for example, sought to use reason to illuminate Christian dogma. Enlightenment thinkers did not generate the value of critique in a vacuum; rather, they applied the skepticism that had been cultivated over centuries of theological debate to the dogmas their predecessors had uncritically accepted. Thus, an embrace of pre-Enlightenment Europe entails an acceptance of Enlightenment values, albeit in an inchoate form; such an ideology must sacrifice its consistency by stunting the growth of the values it strives to maintain.
Similarly, one might claim that a commitment to the Western historical heritage is primarily cultural rather than ideological; just as one can celebrate certain holidays out of respect for the past rather than ideological devotion, one can celebrate European culture in the same way. This argument, however, relies on a separation between culture and ideology that does not exist in practice. Cultural practices not only assume ideological commitments but often exist to celebrate them. In the absence of those commitments, the traditions deteriorate. In today’s political landscape, those who claim they desire a renewal of Western culture rarely argue their ambitions are solely cultural because they understand that without strong values, culture cannot sustain itself.
But the tension that arises from an uncompromising engagement with the Western historical heritage does not merely implicate conservatism; the left’s rejection of this heritage generates a similar tension. Many on today’s left assert that the Western historical heritage is morally compromised by its association with slavery and colonization. Academics in the humanities, for example, often justify their focus on European thought and history by citing the overwhelming prevalence of critique in such scholarship; scholarship that does not condemn the Western historical heritage would, they claim, have little value.
When I attended a lecture on Olaudah Equiano, a freed slave who wrote a memoir describing his conversion to Christianity, a professor argued that his invocation of European values was solely valuable insofar as it facilitated his argument for the abolition of slavery; to her, his religious conversion had no value outside of its use to further a political objective. Further, she argued that this intellectual dishonesty was virtuous, demonstrating the depth of his commitment to dismantling colonialist oppression. Her interpretation thus turned a plausibly spiritual narrative into an attack on the Western historical heritage that left no room for redemption.
This moment serves as an example of the broader trend that has captured the left-wing movement I describe; it strives not to isolate specific aspects of the Western historical heritage deserving of critique, but to dismantle the heritage in its entirety. In this act of destruction, the left applies the same value of critique that its predecessors applied toward the dogmas of Christianity to the tradition in which it was formed. Today’s left is the inheritor of the intellectual tradition that it seeks to devalue; by dismantling the Western historical heritage, the left destroys its own roots. The left-wing ideology I describe is therefore inherently self-destructive.
The tension underlying the historical orientations of both left and right results from a broader moral framework that treats a historical heritage as a monolithic entity that must either be accepted or rejected in its entirety. In the case of the right, it evaluates tradition through its connection to one’s ancestry, and demands an uncritical commitment toward one’s historical heritage. In the case of the left, it evaluates tradition through its status on a power hierarchy and applies critique selectively to dismantle traditions deemed “problematic.” To resolve the tension that results from the application of these orientations to the Western historical heritage, the left and right must shift their gaze from the past to the ideas within it. Rather than taking historical heritage as a monolithic entity, they must apply both critique and rehabilitation to build a consistent set of values.
I found this essay to be a bit too esoteric and removed from practical politics. Though it may well be the start of a great PhD thesis, it's not the kind of thing that will sway many voters or cause any change, either at Harvard or beyond, outside of the narrow hallways of academia.
With that said, my strongest reaction came from the mention of Christianity. I do agree that American conservatism is highly focused on Christianity, and I offer only a defense of that stance in reply.
Christianity has, indeed, been hijacked and abused by many over the centuries. But, in its purest form, Christianity is unique. Jesus Christ was unique, as a leader and teacher, in that he eschewed violence. He taught passivism. And, in the landscape of history, leaders who taught non-violence are quite rare, indeed. Most of human history is a long list of wars, conquests, and very bloody battles. Yet, in the middle of this bloody tapestry emerges a selfless leader who teaches non-violence, loving thy neighbor, and even loving thy enemy - a beacon of hope for those who prefer a life without warfare.
For all the well remembered warrior leaders in history, none is as popular now, 2 millennia after His life and ministry, as Jesus Christ. The only comparable leader who comes to my mind is Mahatma Ghandi, but even Ghandi's legacy is not as long and well-remembered as Jesus Christ.
So, it is for good reason that conservatives carry forth the memory and teachings of Jesus. Without Him, the world would be a much more war-like place. Probably a bit more like the Middle East, where Mohamed's warrior legacy reigns supreme, where life is cheap, and where human rights are deemphasized, to say the least.
Mark Twain once wrote that his visit to Syria in the 19th century solidified his Christian beliefs like no Biblical passage, hymn, or sermon ever could. He described a heartless and brutal Islamic society, with all kinds of homelessness, illness, and death in the streets - visual images that he did not see in America, but only in Syria. In other words, his commitment to Christianity was strengthened simply by seeing how bad things were in a country that did not have it.
The heritage of the West is the combining of Classical and Christian thought and culture. Some times one or the other becomes dominant, and Western culture is the worse for it. I would estimate that Christian values were dominant in the Middle Ages and Classical values are dominant now. A balance of Classical and Christian thought has led to the greatest cultural flourishing, such as the period of the Renaissance and the Reformation.