is there still an American scene?
“One’s final judgment of Europe and America depends, it seems to me, upon whether one thinks that America (or America as a symbol) is right to reject romanitas” — as defined chiefly in this book — “or that Europe is right in trying to find new forms of it suited to the ‘democratized’ societies of our age.”
“The fundamental presupposition of romanitas, secuar or sacred, is that virtue is prior to liberty, i.e., what matters most is that people should think and act rightly; of course it is preferable that they should do so of their own free will, but if they cannot or will not, they must be made to, the majority by the spiritual pressure of education and tradition, the minority by physical coercion, for liberty to act wrongly is not liberty but licence. The antagonistic presupposition, which is not peculiar to America and would probably not be accepted by many Americans, but for which this country has come, symbolically, to stand, is that liberty is prior to virtue — i.e., liberty cannot be distinguished from license, for freedom of choice is neither good not bad but the human prerequisite without which virtue and vice have no meaning. Virtue is, of course, preferable to vice, but to choose vice is preferable to having virtue chosen for one.”
— W. H. Auden, Introduction to a reprint of Henry James’s 1907 book The American Scene. This was published first as an essay, and appeared about three weeks after Auden became an American citizen, in June of 1946.
I have been spending more than a little time the last few thinking about vice even more than I usually do. Something, it would seem, predictably tempt men to excess (and Mako too) and I have a beef with my Liberal friends, it’s that they like to think that this is not so; that drugs, and drink and gambling and sex (and mostly especially sex) have no special hold over us; and that any pathological excesses are mostly and mere a result of prohibitions.
I do not believe this is so.
Power too, seems to hold a special sway over men’s souls. A favorite C.S. Lewis quote comes to mind.
— Tony Comstock · Jun 12, 06:53 PM · #
Some people have an addictive personality, and some people don’t. Some people can try whatever drugs they care to (like me) and never find them the least bit addicting. Some people smoke one cigarette and they’re hooked.
Frankly, I’m convinced it’s associated with religion, too; some people have a part of their brain that triggers sensations of spirituality relatively easily, and some people (like me) find it difficult to achieve that state. And if you go around in life having your spiritual brain masturbated by the slightest stimulation, you’re probably convinced you see the hand of God in all things.
Some people need a firm hand to be restrained from excesses they can’t control. Some people don’t, and indeed, society benefits when those people engage in that excess, because they do so not as slaves but as creators.
The liberal response, Tony, is to discern the difference between those two groups of people – not come down on drugs because some people can’t handle them. In the words of Twain, it’s a prohibition on steak because a baby can’t chew it.
— Chet · Jun 12, 07:58 PM · #
Chet,
I would think that excesses of the kind that Tony is talking about (drugs, alcohol, gambling, sex) are called excesses because they have become something that a person cannot control. Whenever someone, for instance, drinks to excess (i.e., gets drunk) , they have lost or abandoned a significant portion of their judgment and will. They are just as likely, if not more likely, to become destroyers as “creators,” and whether they are creative in their alcoholic excess is very little a matter of their own agency.
I agree with Tony’s point that pathological excesses, particularly sexual excesses, are not mostly and merely the result of repression. Whether, say, sex and gambling addictions are entirely a matter of addictive personalities I am unqualified to say.
Great quote, Alan. Thank you for this. Auden captures one of James’s characteristic preoccupations here.
I like that Auden posits the presupposition of romanitas as primarily symbolic, and I wonder whether latter-day American “romanitas” doesn’t leave off the importance of choosing virtue altogether. Choosing is all. It’s interesting, for example, that the final chapter of A Clockwork Orange was left out of the American edition of the novel.
— Kate Marie · Jun 12, 08:34 PM · #
Chet, were you and Conor separated at birth?
— Tony Comstock · Jun 12, 09:06 PM · #
“I agree with Tony’s point that pathological excesses, particularly sexual excesses, are not mostly and merely the result of repression.”
I’v re-read it three times now and I’m pretty sure that’s not what I wrote.
— Tony Comstock · Jun 12, 09:09 PM · #
Sorry for misunderstanding, Tony. Could you explain what the antecedent for “this” is in your statement “I do not believe this is so?” Thanks.
— Kate Marie · Jun 12, 09:15 PM · #
There’s a lot more to “license” in America than abuse of drugs, sex, and alcohol. Libertarians and big swaths of conservatives believe that liberty is prior to virtue. That a persons right to fill in the wetlands on his property is prior to the responsibility that person has to other’s interest in preservign the health of the land. In fact, I don’t think this passage is about small personal sin at all.
And of course, it doesn’t have to be and never is, all one or the other. Always liberty before virture or always virture before liberty.
— cw · Jun 12, 09:16 PM · #
“Libertarians and big swaths of conservatives believe that liberty is prior to virtue. That a persons right to fill in the wetlands on his property is prior to the responsibility that person has to other’s interest in preservign the health of the land.”
I would quibble a bit with your interpretation of the Auden passage, cw. Auden’s point, as I understand it, is not primarily about “rights” but about the conditions under which personal virtue may be said to exist. It’s not so much that a person’s right to fill in the wetlands is prior to his responsibility to others’ interests, but that a person must be at liberty to choose to fill in the wetlands (or not) in order for his eventual choice/act to be described as virtuous. The crux of it is here, I think: “…freedom of choice is neither good nor bad but the human prerequisite without which virtue and vice have no meaning.”
“I cannot love a fugitive and cloistered virtue,” and all that.
— Kate Marie · Jun 12, 09:31 PM · #
“Sorry for misunderstanding, Tony. Could you explain what the antecedent for “this” is in your statement “I do not believe this is so?” Thanks.”
KM, I appreciate your asking for clarification, but since my response is wound up in the Catholic church’s position on oral sex, I want to take some time to think about how to answer to that what I have to say doesn’t come off as an attack on you or a dismissal of your beliefs.
— Tony Comstock · Jun 12, 11:23 PM · #
isn’t the priority of virtue over liberty true for almost all societies and philosophies, with modern liberalism being an exception? particular ancient hedonistic philosophies being exceptions (e.g., carvaka).
— Razib · Jun 13, 12:33 AM · #
Thanks, Tony. Don’t worry too much about policing your language with respect to the Catholic Church; I’m not generally inclined to take attacks on the Church’s various positions as attacks on me, unless they’re wildly hyperbolic or actually attacks on me (i.e., “you’re a liar and a stupid religious mouth breather,“etc.).
— Kate Marie · Jun 13, 04:24 PM · #
Maybe let’s run this the other way, KM. Follow the below link and read; then tell me what if any thoughts it prompts on question of balancing liberty and virtue:
THE MORALITY OF ORAL SEX WITHIN SACRAMENTAL MARRIAGE
— Tony Comstock · Jun 14, 04:08 PM · #