The Elizabethan Era: Its People and Perspective

The Elizabethan Era is known for significant military action and great accomplishments in the liberal arts.  When this era is referenced it commonly delves into Shakespeare’s plays or Queen Elizabeth’s political prowess.  But there is an ignored part of this history; for instance when historians take a look at the French Revolution the mythology, beliefs, philosophy and religion secure the most attention.  They dissect every last “cause and effect” scenario and publish whole books about their findings and theories.  Strangely, only certain eras have merited this treatment by modern society.  One neglects to dissect the Elizabethan Era.  There are, of course, anthropological studies and other trends in this era, but the world view or “zeitgeist” has been paid little attention.  One writer, Eustace M. W. Tillyard published a work in 1972 titled The Elizabethan World Picture.  In this piece, Tillyard explores the idea of order in the minds of writers such as Shakespeare, Donne and Milton.  Though it is not difficult to find quotes in these authors that expound their idea of the universe, this book limited itself to the manifestations of ideas in the poetic minds of the day.  It does not consider the common man’s experience or how these ideas may have shown in the inane and frivolous.  Consequently, when one thinks of Queen Elizabeth’s reign images of writers or explorers flood the mind and satisfy the historical concepts.  There is so much more left untapped, such as the explorer, poet, statesman, soldier that was Sir Walter Raleigh (1554-1629).  Raleigh is exemplary of a man who completely reacts instinctually to the tide of the times while maintaining his own critical thought.  This man and his contemporaries were like any French or American revolutionary; they were beasts of their age.   His views as to the order of the cosmos may have been indispensable from the average Elizabethan.  After all, many popular figures in Elizabethan lore are common men by birth and rose to notoriety based on their exceptional work.  Though it may not seem so, the Elizabethan Age was dominated by this unique and peculiar design for the universe and it bleeds from many areas of business.  The design is one of Order; the Four Humours and the Divine right of Kings.  The opposition, like Beatrice Groves, believes otherwise.  She asserted in her book Texts and Traditions: Religion in Shakespeare 1592-1604, that, “Shakespeare does not commit the same ideological elisions of which many of his contemporaries were guilty in their discussions of a biblically based government”.[1]  Along with Raleigh, Francis Bacon’s (1561-1626) essays are ripe with data to support the world view of the Elizabethan.  Bacon approaches philosophically the scheme of this order for which Tillyard so adequately gave evidence.  Finally, Shakespeare (1564-1616) will also be used as another source to perhaps paint the minds of the common man.  These men, their actions and their writings should finally reveal what the Elizaethan world view was.

A Measure of Shakespeare

Who better to approach first than the undisputed greatest playwright that ever lived William Shakespeare?  He was born and baptized in the town Stratford-on-Avon to a glover, John Shakespeare and his wife Mary Arden in 1564.  Living a plain life under plain circumstances did not prevent Shakespeare from receiving a standard education.  It has been supposed that he actively started pursuing the theater in 1592.[2]  His plays have become immortal since then.  When one presumes that William Shakespeare was a real man as opposed to a conspiracy, the question comes: What gave this man his clairvoyance to pen these masterpieces with only the use of a menial free education?  His plays may answer this question for us.  Stephen Greenblatt points out that Shakespeare found himself searching for what other playwrights had not yet done.  So he writes of fools and presumably honorable men getting drunk and disorderly.  Greenblatt says of Sir Toby and Falstaff, “They do for a limited time overturn sobriety, dignity and decorum”.[3] In Julius Caesar Shakespeare inserts and references classical imagery that could not have come from a standard education; he obtained this knowledge from his society.  In Act I, Scene iii, Casca, a conspirator meets Cicero in the night.  He described the setting and wrote that there should be “thunder and Lightning” as this is what the topic of the scene required.  This use of weather was not a device to communicate devious behavior, rather it was suggesting that along with the dialogue that there was a disturbance in the cosmos.  Casca says early on, “Either there is a civil strife in heaven/Or else the world, too saucy with the gods/incenses them to send destruction”.[4] 

Why does this mean anything about the common Elizabethan world view?  Tons of authors have referenced the gods at one point or another.  Elizabethans had a keen sense of hierarchy.  In the Monarchy they assert that the king or queen is God’s Anointed.  This is what Tillyard calls (and used as a chapter title) the chain of being.  God delegates power to his subjects, and they must not be questioned.  C. S. Lewis describes this in his Preface to Paradise Lost saying, “Everything except God has some natural superior; everything except unformed matter has some natural inferior”.[5]  So, in the case of Julius Caesar, although he was technically a dictator, qualified as “God’s anointed”; which meant that the conspiracy caused a storm in the cosmos, creating chaos and disarray.  Brutus and Cassius planned to assassinate Caesar and this was not conducive to a peaceful world.  Of course, modern scholars have written of Shakespeare’s strange representation of political intrigue.  The notion of hierarchy is so prominent amongst Elizabethans that modern sensibilities cannot handle to the torque.  In Taming of the Shrew Katharina’s eventually submitted and gave a speech that drove modern historians to think that Shakespeare wrote it ironically.[6]  Many strange sights were observed and reported, such as men walking about engulfed in fire.[7]  Casca knew he was up to no good, testing his boundaries with the questionable Cicero.  Casca relates these things to Cassius later hoping for consolation saying, “But wherefore did you so much tempt the heavens? / It is the part of men to fear and tremble / When to the most mighty gods by tokens send / Such dreadful heralds to astonish us”.[8]  Tillyard quotes John Fortescue saying, “In this order hot things are in harmony with cold, dry with moist, heavy with light, great with little, high with low.  In this order angel is set over angel, rank upon rank in the kingdom of heaven; man is set over man, beast over beast . . .”.[9]  This quote nicely sums up the general thesis of the Elizabethan era which promotes order and rank (divine right).  The humours are mixed in but only appear as a subset of the over arching order.

One cannot really be sure of what motivated Brutus to assassinate Caesar, but the fashion that Shakespeare wrote it was that Brutus was an “honorable man”.[10]  He deeply lamented having to put to death his good friend, but figured the ends justified the means.  When Antony turns the people against Brutus, Cassius, and the rest of the conspirators, Brutus becomes panicky; he tries to patch things back to normal and justifies his actions.  Of course no matter how much mental gymnastics he does he is visited in the night by Caesar’s ghost.  Being approached by the ghost he says, “I think it is the weakness of mine eyes . . . art thou some god, some angel, or some devil?”.[11]  This is not merely a send up of Greek mythology, because if it were Brutus would have spoken of fates, furies and gods by name.  Perhaps, Shakespeare was following up on Dante Alighieri’s suggestion that Brutus (guilty of regicide) was a man just as wicked as Judas (Guilty of killing God).  These actions are significantly different in scope, but the suggestion is that they are one and the same.

One major part of the Elizabethan world view was the four humours.  The general idea was since food was a necessary part of our living, it was integral to our being.  As food passes through our system it converts to four bodily liquids which were phlegm, melancholy, blood and choler.[12]  All of these corresponded to four elements which were water, earth, air and fire.  This was the science of the day and this is what was referenced in matters of health.  This is a sub-order of the grand order of the complete cosmos; it merely has to do with man.  In Julius Caesar Antony speaks of Brutus at the end of the play saying, “His life was gentle, and the elements / so mix’d in him that Nature might stand up / and say to all world, ‘This was a man!’”.[13]  This is a prime example: not only does it apply to the soft science of the world, but also to a man’s general position of the cosmos to the point where an anthropomorphized nature speaks well of a man to have these humours balanced.  This is not merely poetry; this is orthodoxy.  Shakespeare was not a doctor, but a simple man of the theater.  One must also notice the fact that the word “nature” is capitalized.

A Measure of Francis Bacon

Francis may not be as interesting a man as Shakespeare was, but he may provide a greater wealth of world view evidence.  He was an informal theologian who was not all that “churchy” but was willing to defend it mightily.  Atheism was at this time gaining believers, so naturally Bacon stepped in.  Tillyard, in his chapter on sin said, “Atheism not agnosticism was the rule.  It was far easier to be very wicked and think yourself so than to be a little wicked without a sense of sin”.[14]  Not only did agnosticism doubt God’s existence, but it forgot the entire order of the universe and their personal role inside it.  This was socially unacceptable and so naturally pagans, heathens and atheists were more acceptable for their mere validity, because they at least had a design.  Heathens served a false and valid god while atheists served the “god self”, which is just as valid as any pagan deity.  The acceptance of a grand order to the universe was incredibly important to the Elizabethan.   Still, in the eyes of Bacon, atheists were sorely mistaken; so much he wrote an essay on atheism.  The opening lines go, “I had rather believe all the fables in the legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without mind”.[15]  Not only is this an apologetic, but this claim also asserts that order is necessary, and to forget inserting order into your world view is down right absurd.  Bacon argues from the perspective that Tillyard called the “chain of being”.[16]  He granted that a little philosophy “inclineth a man’s mind to atheism” but that when one delves deeper into the whole business he is eventually brought about to religion.[17]  Bacon spoke almost directly of the chain of being saying, “But when it beholdeth the chain of them [events] confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to providence and deity”.[18]  Simply, he says that when a man does not see the bigger picture he will not believe in god, but examining his world and his place inside it he will quickly resort to religion.  In hindsight, Bacon points out that Protestantism fueled the fire for this belief.  He tracks the lack of atheism to a little division in the church; the Protestant Reformation though large boiled down to two opposing doctrines of salvation.  As the Reformation continues one notes the amount of division in Protestants, and with much division in religion atheism gains power.  This perfidiousness of people, mixing in the apparent chaos, gave reason to believe that there is no god.  “Where is he?” they ask.

As mentioned before Bacon saw order as necessary, but along with that order came a delightful Elizabethan notion of hierarchy.  Not only hierarchy, but monarchy was his favorite given that Yahweh is himself a monarch.  He said with great Solomonic fervour, “A king is a mortal God on earth, unto whom the living God hath lent his own name as a great honor”.[19]  He believed in divine right of kings, because it was another puzzle piece to hold everything together.  He did have other instructions for monarchs but most of all, in a very un-Lockeian way, the king must be obeyed. 

To relate this to commoners one must know that poets were, in fact, the rock stars of that day.  Poetry was the easiest means of creating and sharing art in those times, so naturally poetry circulated in and out of the courts and into the streets.  Sir John Davies wrote a poem upon seeing the Virgin Queen in her majesty.  He was stricken to the point of writing, “Her brighter dazzling beams of majesty”.[20]  Tillyard quoted this poem, but used it in a different effect.  He wanted to point out the fabled cosmic dance that exemplified itself inside the court.  This poetry resonated with the people; not only did they enjoy the sight of the queen, but they enjoyed the sheer cosmic order.  For one’s country to gravitate towards prosperity is a good thing, but for there to be no war in heaven is encouraging to say the least.  Hence, atheism during this time was unfashionable, even if tolerated.  Dancing (an ordering of bodily movements) was a very popular entertainment for Elizabethans, as well.  It, like poetry, was easy to accomplish with minimal resource.  Even though Bacon was not fond of dancing himself said, “Dancing to song, is a thing of great state and pleasure”.[21]

It should be noted that Francis Bacon is known as the father of the modern scientific method.  Bacon wrote very clearly his ideas on how to obtain empirical knowledge about our world.  What had inspired him to create this plan of science.  The general idea was to let Nature (that is with a capital “N”) speak and argue for itself.  He considered it conceited to propose a hypothesis and attempt to prove it.  Who was man that he can measure nature so precisely?  Rather, he wanted man to create a hypothesis and attempt to disprove it.  He said in his essay Of Truth:

“Doth any man doubt, that if there were taken out of men’s minds vain opinions, flattering hopes, false valuations, imaginations as one would, and the like, but it would leave the minds of a number of men poor shrunken things, full  of melancholy and indisposition, and unpleasing to themselves?”.[22]

Scientists based their science off of religion.  If religion had not been customary advanced science would have been drastically slowed down.  C. S. Lewis points out in his book Miracles that “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a legislator”.[23]  Lewis suggests that when religion begins to leave a society science will cease advancing.  He also said agreeing with Bacon, “Science itself has already made reality appear less homogenous than we expected it to be”.[24]  This suggests that human nature tends to think that there is more order in the universe than for which we have visible proof.  Unknown forces have arranged the universe.

A Measure of Sir Walter Raleigh

All this is only a fraction of how Elizabethans functioned.  Of course, when analyzing the intellectuals of the era there will be different suggestions left and right.  Sir Walter Raleigh, a prime poster child of the Elizabethan commoner, will shed more light upon the zeitgeist of the people.  Raleigh was a commoner despite his time as a statesman, soldier, and writer.  He was a Protestant born into complete obscurity as we have almost no information about his early life.  What Lewis said about his poetry, the same may be said about his life that “Raleigh has happy moments but seldom gets through a longer piece without disaster”.[25]  But out of secluded life he came and ascended into prominence, and noted by Queen Elizabeth.  Loved by the people he had a significant discipleship (ship mates, mostly) allowing him to settle the Americas and do a little pirating of Spanish vessels on the side.

He had a significant amount of poetry to go along with his personality.  He wrote one twelve line poem titled De Morte which interpreted man’s life as a standard play; this has underlying tones of cosmic order.  In his Excellent Observations and Notes Concerning the Royal Navy and Sea Service he mentions to the Queen, whom he was writing to, certain thanks.  He says, “I confess that peace is a great blessing of God, and blessed are the peacemaker, and therefore doubtless blessed are those means whereby peace is gained and maintained”.[26]  This is not just Raleigh being devout, but it also is concluding argument to his piece.  He appeals to Queen Elizabeth through ethos; it would be right for her to follow through with Raleigh’s ideas.

             One of the more striking pieces he wrote was his letter to King James I.  Formerly, he was locked away in the tower for fourteen years for suspected treason against the king.  But he was let out for one last voyage to Guiana to mine gold.  Along the way Spanish ships ambushed him, and twenty-six of his men along with Raleigh’s own son were murdered.  His men mutinied, but not against their captain but for the sake of their captain; they knew if he was to return home then the King would send him to the scaffold.  He ended up writing a letter to King James saying:

“My mutineers told me that if I returned for England, I should be undone, but I believed in your Majesty’s goodness, more than in all their arguments.  Sure I am the first that being free and able to enrich myself, yet hath embraced poverty and peril.  And as sure I am that my example shall make me the last: but your Majesty’s wisdom and goodness I have made my judges, who have ever been and ever shall be”.[27]

This is a very bizarre statement.  First, his mutineers were not revolting against their captain, but for their captain.  Raleigh manages to convince them of his world view to let him return to England.  These sailors were the “undocumented” Elizabethan, but they shared a sense of hierarchy and order, however misplaced that it is.  Second, it is important to remember that the Enlightenment age was imminent.  This letter is deeply disturbing for many who do not share the Elizabethan world view.  Raleigh was so devoted to the Divine Right of Kings that he submitted himself to someone whom he very well knew wanted him dead.  King James the First despised Raleigh.  The last line of the letter said that he would forever remain faithful to the cause of the monarch.  Lewis describes the matter of degree and office nicely and gives us a reason why it is important for these men.  He wrote, “If you take ‘Degree’ away ‘each thing meets in mere opugnancy,’ ‘strength’ will be lord, everything will ‘include itself in power’ . . . .  The real alternative is tyranny; if you will not have authority you will find yourself obeying brute force”.[28]  Simply, you either submit willingly, or you have submission forced on you.  This is what Raleigh’s policy was.  In a letter Raleigh wrote to his wife on the night that he was expecting to go to the scaffold he does the same thing.  He praised his God and recommended that his wife do the same.  Lastly, in a letter to his son he wrote, “Serve God: let him be the Author of all thy actions”.[29] 

            Perhaps one of the most significant moments in English history was the Spanish Armada being destroyed.  A decisively embarrassing event for Spain and almost quite literally a God send for the English.  Raleigh, after the fact, noted that there were multiple propaganda pieces being put out by the Spaniards. They attempted to cover up the shame of their loss through lies and spin.  So he counteracted them and wrote his own account just for the Queen to examine.  He began saying, “The Spaniards according to their vainglorious vaunts, making great appearance of victories, when on the contrary themselves are most commonly and shamefully beaten and dishonored”.[30]  Paraphrased he says, “Let me inform you, Queen of the truth.”  Near the end of the account he references the storm that occurred and as the world view would have it, he brought God in to the equation.  He wrote, “Thus it hath pleased God to fight for us . . . .  A manifest testimony how unjust and displeasing their attempts are in the sight of God . . .”.[31]  He says this while at the same time he refers to a traitor in this way, “To be unnatural to his own country that bred him, to his parents that begat him, and rebellious to his true prince to whose obedience he is bound by oath, by nature and by religion?”.[32]  Raleigh not only condemns the traitor by his Christianity, but also condemns by the Law and Order of Nature.

            Tillyard makes it clear through Raleigh’s History of the World that he was convinced of this order of degrees in God’s Kingdom.  He wrote, “For that infinite wisdom of God, which hath distinguished his angels by degrees . . . .”.[33]  He points towards the cosmic hierarchy in this as he continues to list the orders of kings, dukes, magistrates and judges.  For such a fantastic description of the universe Raleigh has an easy time asserting it.  Again it must be pointed out that Raleigh is a good measuring stick for how the average Elizabethan thought.  He arose out of the people, got fame, got slandered multiple times, and maintained his firm beliefs all the way up to his unjustified death; in spite of all the things he was (poet, soldier, statesman, explorer) he was not a philosopher.  Raleigh was just a man who lived what he believed.  Tillyard said, “Raleigh’s life had been in part as secular as one can conceive . . . he must have known disorder at its most horrible . . . .Yet it is the same man who can see the glory of God”.[34]

            Raleigh shared more than tobacco with Francis Bacon (They were, at least, acquaintances).  He wrote of atheism in a four line poem; the last two lines went, “Raw is the reason that doth lie within an atheist’s head. / Which saith the soul of man doth die when that the body’s dead”.[35]  This was not enough to keep rumors from building. Agnes Latham noticed that once a judge had been employed to determine whether Raleigh was an atheist.  The reason might be discovered by an anonymous comment after his execution regarding his speech, which went, “He spoke not one word of Christ, but of a great and incomprehensible God, with much zeal and adoration.”  The accusation was just a case of mudslinging as the judge read his History of the World and said, “I am resolved you are a good Christian”. [36]  Latham said of it, “Raleigh is concerned with the source of ultimate power and ultimate order rather than with saving grace, but it is a question of emphasis, not of orthodoxy”.[37]

Conclusion

            When one thinks of the importance of order, hierarchy, and the four humours inside the Elizabethan era it may seem confusing to those who look forward to the Enlightenment, the French Revolution and the American Revolution.  The Enlightenment claimed to be built for reason, and about reason; it would trust no other empirical source of truth other than reason.  The French Revolution was chaotic anarchy devoid of order and the American Revolution was a rebellion against the “divine right of kings” whether they knew it or not at the time.  One wonders how this shift in attitude happened so suddenly and that it happened at all.  Tillyard wanted his readers to realize that the Elizabethan era, although short, was the golden age as opposed to his contemporaries who thought it was the metaphysical poets.  He greatly admired the Elizabethans and said of them, “It is precisely the basic simplicity and strength of the greatest Elizabethans that we need to perceive if we are not to reduce the norm of their age to mere pageant-making and minstrelsy”.[38]  This age is due more than we give it, and we neglect several parts of its zeitgeist whether it is in the literature, letters or essays.  The ethos, pathos and logos comes out of every nook and cranny.  It must not be ignored for long.

Bibliography

1. Tillyard, Eustace M. W. The Elizabethan World Picture. New York: Vintage Books. Print.

2. Shakespeare, William.  Julius Caesar.  London: Oxford University Press, 1957. Print.

3. Raleigh, Sir Walter.  Letters, Poems and Essays.  New York: J.M. Dent & Sons. Print

4. Bacon, Francis.  Essays.  New York: The Henneberry Company. Print.

5. Lewis, C. S. Miracles.  New York: The Macmillan Company.  Print

6. Lewis, C. S.  Preface to Paradise Lost.  London: Oxford University Press.  Print

7. Greenblatt, Stephen. Will in the World.  New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004.  Print.

8. Groves, Beatrice. Texts and Traditions: Religion in Shakespeare 1592-1604. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.

9. Agnes, Latham.  Sir Walter Raleigh. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1964. Print.

10. Lewis, Clive S. English Literature in the Sixteenth Century.  Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954. Print.

---

[1]Beatrice Groves, Texts and Traditions: Religion in Shakespeare 1592-1604 (New York: Oxford Univeristy Press, 2007.), 183.   Groves also argues that Shakespeare was a closet Catholic.  Tillyard who was a Catholic and co-wrote a book of theological arguents with C.S. Lewis called A Present Heresy seems to miss Grove’s point in his own research.  He seems to believe that Shakespeare was solely protestant.

[2] Stephen Greenblatt, Will in the World (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004).

[3] Greenblatt, Will in the World, 41

[4] William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar (London: Oxford University Press, 1957), 16.

[5]C. S. Lewis, Preface. (London: Oxford University Press, 1946), 72.

[6] Groves, Texts and Traditions, 154. Groves argues this particular point by pointing to Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure.  She believes that Shakespeare was questioning the divine right of kings and above all was an early enlightenment figure.

[7] Julius Caesar 1. 3. 15-31.  Along with men walking around on fire there were other oddities that Casca heard reported.  There was a slave whose hand burned like twenty torches and left unscathed, a lion wandering the capitol building and owls “hooting and shrieking”.  Shakespeare battled the naturalist notion further when Casca warned Cicero saying, “Do so conjointly meet, let not men say, / “These are their reasons, they are natural.”

[8] Julius Caesar 1. 3. 51-56

[9] Eustace Tillyard, The Elizabethan World Picture (New York: Vintage Books, no date), 26-27.

[10] Julius Caesar 3. 2. 88.

[11] Julius Caesar 5. 1. 275-278

[12] Tillyard, Elizabethan. 69

[13] Julius Caesar 5. 5. 73-75

[14] Tillyard, Elizabethan, 18

[15] Francis Bacon, Essays (New York: The Henneberry Company, no date), 68.

[16] Tillyard, Elizabethan, 25

[17] Bacon, Essays, 68

[18] Bacon, Essays, 68

[19] Bacon, Essays, 215

[20] Tillyard, Elizabethan, 105

[21] Bacon, Essays, 146

[22] Bacon, Essays, 17

[23] Lewis, Miracles, 128

[24] Lewis, Miracles, 35

[25] Lewis, Sixteenth Cent., 519

[26] Sir Walter Raleigh, Excellent Observations and Notes Concerning the Royal Navy and Sea Service, (New York: J.M. Dent & Sons, no date), 171.

[27] Sir Walter Raleigh, Return From Guiana, (New York: J.M. Dent & Sons, no date), 205

[28] Lewis, Preface, 74

[29] Sir Walter Raleigh, Instructions to His Son, (New York: J.M. Dent & Sons, no date), 182

[30] Sir Walter Raleigh, The Last Fight of the “Revenge” at Sea, (New York: J.M. Dent & Sons, no date), 73

[31] Raleigh, “Revenge”, 88.

[32] Raleigh, “Revenge” ,89.

[33] Tillyard, Elizabethan, 11.

[34] Tillyard, Elizabethan, 24.

[35] Raleigh, Poems, 59

[36] Agnes Latham.  Sir Walter Raleigh.  (London: F. Mildner & son, 1964), 32.  “Raleigh was interested in the problems propounded by the nature of God, of creation and of the image of God in man. . . . It is peculiarly liable to be misconstrued by narrow minds.  Raleigh had a dangerous kind of disengagement, a tolerance when confronted with alien ideas and an intellectual boldness.”

[37] Ibid., 32

[38] Tillyard, Elizabethan, 108.

A Discourse on Whose in Charge Here

Rendering our hearts and minds to business we value most,

A proverbial relative personal holy ghost.

Chin up and clenching fist; cold heart and soothing mist,

That devil, of too much power did he boast.

Unchanging, and always breathing, this cancer is a test,

To discern who is who, to wear freedom’s crest.

O freedom, my freedom reigns; O fiend, you fiend it pains,

Plagues this home, this best abode, a sad forgotten nest.

But ponder more, soul those clumsy rights I wrought,

By whose authority my life untimely brought.

Birthed right once before, to die wrong twice the more,

Our worst actions reveal what we always thought.

He that is, if he is, king of all that I survey,

Will not be me, by my monthly servant’s pay.

Controlled, to one knee; avert mine eyes so he,

May rule accordingly, alive the suppliants pray.

Boring Book Critique on Foucault's "The History of Sexuality"

Michael Foucault puts forward a descriptive theory on the nature of power and sexuality’s relation to it in his book The History of Sexuality.  He does not try to prescribe any suggestions, but rather assumes man’s immovability and resigns himself to the ambitious leaders.  Relativity is the game and post-modernism is its name.  Foucault claims that our traditional ideas of where power comes from are mistaken.  These traditional ideas include hierarchy and the top-down relationship of delegated authority.  Instead, he asserts that our government’s best way to “lean forward” in the world is to control the people’s sexuality.  A government either represses its people or encourages its people, but either way control must be maintained.  Not only is it for the internal affair of keeping your citizens in check, but it is used for external affairs as well.  Control of the sexuality of your people has a benefit of a larger future military.  With a larger future military, a nation can campaign or at least defend its borders more efficiently.  In short, he opposes Mao Ze Dong’s “power comes from the barrel of a gun” quote, Foucault says that power comes from culture and its sexuality.  As a side note he contradicts the notion of the sexual revolution of the sixties when he says, “ . . . if power is seen as having only an external hold on desire, or, if it is constitutive of desire itself, to the affirmation: you are always – already trapped” (83).  Leaving post-modernism behind, both academically and culturally at present, there is a wide open door to critique this theory and Foucault’s argument.  Normally, when a thesis proposal lacks an argument against the opposition, it gains a point of demerit.  Not so with Foucault, since he pleads ignorance by the end of the book.  The real mistakes lie in over application and (like Weber) his failure to falsify his own points.  Foucault was not compelled, even in his post-modernistic thoughts of doubt, to disprove his own ideas.

Foucault believed that “power comes from below” and that there is no “all encompassing opposition between rulers” (94).  By this he meant that power is not a characteristic that one man possesses by himself to compel those below into submission.  Rather, power is something accepted by one man on the condition that there is a willingness to enforce it.  This is a bottom-up power relation and not a top-down power relation.  This is one example where he does not disprove anybodies ideas.  Undoubtedly, there are people that disagree with this claim and desire that Foucault at least make the attempt to find an example of a top-down power relation.  Traditionally, humankind asserts that power comes from the top; God creates the world and he delegates power to the governing authorities to “execute his wrath on the wrong doers”.  All that Foucault said was, “We must at the same time conceive of sex without the law, and power without the king” (91) and then later that power was “not an institution” (93). Whatever he believed personally about God he should have started the conversation there rather than in media res.  It is a bold move to suggest a descriptive philosophy without invoking God in a culture that is only barely separating itself from deities.

Foucault argued saying our culture, obsessed with sex, is evidence that sexuality is a fuel for power in the world.  This idea is mocked using the reductio ad absurdum.  Yes, the culture is obsessed with sex, but also obsessed with many other things.  The internet plays a huge role in society, along with media references, politics, money, pets, family values and humanitarian aid.  In other words, our attention directs towards all things both serious and frivolous.  One could make the same argument that Foucault does except replacing sexuality with memes or the economy like Marx already had done.  He over applies an argument which leads to proof for all, meaning proof for none.  What Foucault correlates and connects is invalid.  Eventually, he did validly argue that ending oppression would not open up sexuality.  He reveals that there has not been a direct repression of sex.  Foucault says, “power is tolerable only on condition that it masks a substantial part of itself.  Its success is proportioned to its ability to hide its own mechanisms” (86).  In this quote he means if a citizenry knew every last detail as to what the government was legislating and enforcing then very soon, there would be a revolution.  When human nature postures individuality one can be very disturbed if they see how many areas of life that the governing authorities control.  Man has always been obsessed with sex and the only distinctions were the level of prudence regarding it, which Foucault might suggest, the government attempts to dictate.  At one point in history we were very open in conversation about sex and then it got awkward in the middle ages.  But afterwards, it opened up again.  But, it must be pointed out that just because one does not want to talk about sex that they do not think about it constantly.

Foucault was a post-modernist.  This means that whatever he says, he says with reservations.  It is all relative and we cannot really know objective truth because our flawed perceptions inevitably get in the way.  This does not stop him from making assertions.  One deals with a man that develops a whole philosophy of how human civilization and empires work and then tells us that he is not sure about it.  But he spoke with such assurance through out the whole book.  Whatever his claims were, true or false, he acted as though it were clear and simply rational with all the data gathered.  Why ought anybody listen to him even if he cannot be sure of himself?  All that this leads us to, and the bulk of post-modernism does, is a pointless endeavor to discover that we are all ignorant.  Understandably, to plead ignorance gives points towards humility.  The world of academics demands that one argue a thesis with certainty, but Foucault does not want to be executed with his ideas if they are proven incorrect.  Perhaps he is not culpable for this mistake, but it fails in present society.

So, Foucault fantastically observes human nature.  Like Weber, he does a good job of describing small isolated incidents.  His follies were many and can be summed up in his failure to disprove any argument and his over application and his contentment of post-modernism’s contradiction with his argumentative voice. Largely, this is an over-rated book and should be ignored for its inability to properly discuss such serious topics.

A Comparison of John Locke’s and Edmund Burke’s influence in the creation of America

  It is a common misunderstanding that everybody in colonial America was a die hard revolutionary.  Our current ideals and our notion of the enlightenment have gotten in the way of a true assessment of what the real mindset was during the late 18^th century.  Just like today it was a full of division and everybody had their own perspective on the issue.  Since the Enlightenment there were always equally strong powers of thought at odds with each other.  By the time of the American Revolution not everybody on American soil was against the crown and not everybody in Britain was a royalist.  Two thinkers (though they were not in the same periods) during this time, who were not necessarily polar opposites, but certain contenders were John Locke and Edmund Burke.  They would not have hated each other, but they did differ greatly in ideas and solutions.  What made them different?  Who was more influential?  What long terms affects did they have?  John Locke was a rights of man advocate, a devoted enlightenment thinker and a huge influence on modern liberalism and libertarians.  Edmund Burke was a conservative whig and an enemy of the French Revolution.  They both shared various thoughts but arrived at severely different conclusions.  The question: What were these men in relation to their times, the American Revolution and how are we affected by them today?

            John Locke was born August 29, 1632 and began attending Christ Church College in Oxford in 1652.  During this time Cromwell was Chancellor; this was a time of great tension and political thoughts piercing every young man’s mind.  While at Oxford Locke became more intrigued with political questions.  He attacked the subjects like the social constitution, separation of church and state and religious toleration; this of course was a huge topic post reformation.  Locke would later be accidentally pulled into the political world by accident through a friendship with Lord Ashley.  By 1672 he obtained the title of “secretary of presentations” all of this coming down to a perfect storm of powers, ideology and ambitions.  Edmund Burke came much later in history and may be described as more intellectually reserved.  Burke was born January 12, 1729 which would make him just in time to be an adult for the revolutionary war.  He received his education at Trinity College, Dublin and then to Middle Temple, London to study for the Bar.  But he didn’t see a career in law as all that attractive so he found himself in Parliament.  By this time he already wrote some of his popular pieces such as A Vindication of Natural Society and An Abridgement of English History.  He became well known for his many speeches in Parliament which he would later publish.  And so these two men would prove themselves and backgrounds to their contemporaries, governments, Kings, and future readers to decide who it was that argued or pandered better to our personal interests.  John Locke as the enlightened scientist of human nature or Edmund Burke as the level headed historian and political theorist.  The comparison will only tell.

            John Locke lived for the bulk of the 17^th century where in he lived to see many failed attempts at colonization in the Americas.  So he was given a lot material to argue against and to form his own ideas.  He also came into a world where the enlightenment was winning the hearts and minds of common folk everywhere.  Usually, when we think of enlightenment thinkers we go straight to Rousseau or Voltaire, but what often goes unnoticed is that these men venerated Locke.  They went as far to say that Locke was the “greatest of all philosophers since Plato”.  Though we cannot be sure of his influence, because correlation does not imply causality, it is reasonable to believe that Locke paved the way for his foreign successors.  Then again it is said by Howard R. Penniman in his introduction to some of Locke’s writings that “His name would have been relegated to the footnotes of English history books if his fame had depended merely upon his varied activities in politics and science” (Penniman 5).  Who were his opponents?  It is easily imagined those who were in positions of power, found Locke detestable.  Cardinal Newman in his presentation On the Idea of a University attacked Locke.  Newman proposed a more classical design for the education system while Locke was a believer in modern schools.  But what was His relation towards America?  Interestingly, he was not hugely involved with American affairs.  There are only two businesses that may be pointed out.  First, he was an investor in the slave trade with the Royal African Company; this is a fact that has made his present day followers uneasy.  Second, he was a contributor in drafting up Carolina’s Constitution which puts another black mark on his resume, because he gave absolute power to slave owners over their slaves.  Locke has been accused of hypocrisy, but one must consider the conditions.  Slavery was the game of the day and his theories on toleration were not developed for everyone, but for natural citizens being white males.  He would not have been embarrassed by this contradiction, because he was not arguing the same conditions that modern day thinkers do.  Locke minded the enslavement of English citizens, but he had no problem with enslaving anybody else.

            Burke, of course, was just in time for the American Revolution.  The world that he grew up in was a magnificent one.  England had been dominating the surrounding inhabitants whether it was the Indians or the French.  The prosperity was great and the influence was lasting, but this later became a criticism that the royalists would have against the revolutionaries.  Burke during this time refined his ideas in England and as mentioned before, got a reputation as a clear and rational thinker.  The prosperous age he lived in could be credited as what got him thinking in different terms from Locke.  Burke did not posture that he knew the metaphysics of man, nor did he claim that they had any rights.  Rather he would say the opposite that man is not born with any inherent rights.  He was not met with much opposition other than difficulties with King George III.  It would be him and William Pitt that would support the repeal of the Stamp Act that greatly ruffled the feathers of the American colonists.

            Mere definition can help tell of the differences between Locke’s and Burke’s life experiences.  Locke was an ideologue, hence we get the term “Lockian”.  Burke was a simple statesman philosopher.  The difference in influence is clear: Locke had a much easier time.  All that Locke had to do was feed a problem through the enlightenment equation and that would provide him a solution.  He gained popularity because he agreed with the tide of the times.  He says in A Letter Concerning Toleration, “The commonwealth seems to me to be a society of men constituted only for the procuring, preserving, and advancing their own civil interests.  Civil interests I call life, liberty, health, and indolency of body . . .” (Locke 25).  These things became very important to the proletariat, very likely on the inspiration of Locke.  Burke had a tougher audience.  Just before the American Revolution there was plenty of pride to be English and a member of the British Empire.  Some of this hung on during the war creating a divide of royalists, rebels and neutrals.  Burke being well bred and quite wealthy wouldn’t want to wage too harshly against the governing officials.  In his speech titled Conciliation with the Colonies he is constantly referring to how we ought to govern the colonies.  He says, “In this state of things, I make no difficulty in affirming that the proposal ought to originate from us” (Burke 10).  Soon after he gives two leading questions saying, “First, whether you ought to concede; secondly, what your concession ought to be” (Burke 10). All this is being said to Parliament, and not to American rebels.  But the biggest proof for Burke’s non-ideologue nature is in this quote: “We must govern America according to that nature and to those circumstances, and not according to our own imaginations, nor according to abstract ideas of right – by no means according to mere general theories of government” (Burke 11).  Burke is very Pauline in thought and in tone here imploring the decision makers to be rational in the specific circumstance.  Sadly, his influence was not significant enough when the British government went against his warnings that “the use of force alone is but temporary” and “a nation is not governed which is perpetually to be conquered” (Burke 23).  Burke’s overall desire was to make Britain a “true friend” of America.  F. P. Lock points this out in his biography of Edmund Burke saying “This is what Burke meant by being a ‘true friend’ of America.  ‘Misunderstandings and heats’ had arisen, in his view, because on neither side of the Atlantic had sufficient heed been paid to the opinions of ‘temperate men’” (Lock 350).  Burke knew the difficulty of his position which is why he did not want to be identified as part of the Rockingham Party; they were the temperate men.  F. P. Lock points out that “Burkes querulousness was aggravated by anxiety about his own position . . . . for he wanted, if possible, to maintain his independence” (Lock 369)

            Locke’s mindset was much more adopted by the rebels than any other.  The inherent rights of man were bouncing around the minds of all fighters who felt suppressed as.  In The Second Treatise on Civil Government he explicitly suggests at the start that rulers do have a right to their citizens.  He says, “Adam had not, either by natural right of fatherhood or by positive donation from God, any such authority over his children, nor dominion over the world, as is pretended” (Locke 75).  This suggestion gives a metaphysical argument for rebellion and revolution; Locke attempts to put to rest the concept of Divine right of Kings.  Even though the idea of a monarchy was wholly repugnant to the Americans, but their decision to have a presidency was definitely based on the difficulty to have checks and balances on kings.  John Locke only heightened the concern by pointing out how easily it would be for a king to think he had a God given position.  Locke was clearly more referenced in the continental congresses.  Some parts of Locke were directly copied into the Declaration of Independence, using the exact phraseology of the Second Treatise (Penniman 9).  Thomas Jefferson was an avid reader of Locke.  Jefferson used what was originally termed as certain unalienable rights invented by Locke; these were Life, Liberty and Property which Jefferson changed to the pursuit of happiness.  In all reality, America was built on Locke’s principles.  Burke, for all of his supplications to the Parliament, could not break through to the American mind set and he was there in the thick of it.  He suggested all kinds of ways for the British to get along with the colonists, but it went against the Scots-Irish mentality to fight to get your way.

            Over the years America has been shaped into perhaps a mixture of both men and their approach.  In popular media we see an attempt to introduce Burke’s method of governing.  It is supposed to be calm, cool and collected.  Force is only to be considered as a last ditch effort and should not be considered permanent.  We are always promoting civility and it was a serious problem for us when Joe Wilson shouted “you lie” at President Obama.  He had to apologize, but in comparison to other government’ congresses they would see this as business as usual.  Observe a session of Parliament and you can see not only the wit but the ruthless accusations towards a person’s intellect.  Burke wanted also wanted to do away with theories of government especially for the crucial questions.  Today we might call it “working together” or “bi-partisanship”.  Burke may have inspired the public face of America, but to what avail?  The populus at every turn will provide a life or death argument on how to govern a nation.  Sects develop in the citizenry.  Some preach violence and others violently preach non-violence.  Why are these sects today?  Everyone has interpreted Lockian philosophy differently.  What one man who grew up in California considers to be “inalienable rights” will be a farce to whatever a South Carolinian thinks “inalienable rights” are.  It has become so confused and muddled from debate over the past centuries that former enemies have eventually found common ground.  As mentioned before, Locke is the father of Liberalism and Libertarianism; this manifests itself when they both agree that Marijuana should be legalized.  Suddenly, Ron Paul does not seem like such a bad candidate for Liberals.  But the big questions are left unanswered.  Is health care a right?  Is education a right?  Are jobs a right?  What would John Locke say to this?  Edmund Burke would not be the person to ask since he pleads ignorance when he says, “The rights of men are in a sort of middle, incapable of definition . . .” (gmu.edu).  Also, he does make suppositions in other works as to whether or not these rights are inherent and makes a resounding “no”.  Burke is very unappealing for any modern American.  Locke might have pandered to these desires, though we cannot know what he would have said.

            Overall, John Locke with all of his enlightened sensibilities shall be crowned most influential.  Even for Burke’s valuable mind and ideas was too uninspiring to lead a nation’s spirit.  Burke was concerned with the status quo.  Locke had posthumously gathered the minds of white land owning men all over the colonies and sparked an empire’s government and its history.  America was born out of rebellion and Locke gave a distant nod of approval.

 Bibliography

1. Locke, John.  The Second Treatise on Civil Government. Roslyn, New York: Walter J. Black Inc. 1947

2. Penniman, Howard. “On Politics and Education”: Introduction. 1-20. Roslyn, New York: Walter J. Black Inc. 1947

3. Burke, Edmund. Conciliation with America. New York: The Macmillan Company. 1914

4. Newsom, Sidney. “Conciliation with America”: Introduction and Notes. ix- xxxviii. New York: The Macmillan Company. 1914

5. Harris, Ian. Edmund Burke. Stanford: Stanford University of Philosophy, 2010. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/burke/. Also available in print form.

6. Burke, Edmund. Reflections on the Revolution in France. Fairfax, Virginia: George Mason University, 2013. http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/563/.

7. Lock, Francis. Edmund Burke. New York: Oxford University Press. 1998

8. Uzgalis, William.  John Locke. Stanford: Stanford University of Philosophy, 2012. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/. Also available in print form.

Boring Post on Max Weber's Spirit of Capitalism

The author of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Max Weber, pushes forward his ideas on capitalisms origins and conditions.  In his book he spares no fact of its relevance and consequently, by the end he teaches the reader more about the general history of Christendom than the advent of Capitalism.  For any lover of history this is a good read, for the matter of fact statements, but Weber left some points un-addressed.
Weber divides the book into two parts and his first part lays the ground work for his theory.  He titles it “The Problem” and writes of religion’s affiliates and a stratified society in the sixteenth century, and then on to the spirit of capitalism.  He tells us what it is that Protestants are doing as opposed to Catholics and gives us the evidence for it, which ends up being almost an argument in itself for Weber.  His facts and observations coincide the stereotypical notions of the protestant.  Weber asserts that Protestants are more energized than Catholics and it seems to be an apparent in North and South Germany.  Weber’s thesis asserts Protestant sects, as opposed to Catholicism, are the driving fuel for capitalism to function properly and without their presence it may never have seen the light of day.  Weber quotes Offenbacher when he brings up the Catholics saying, “He prefers a life of the greatest possible security, even with a smaller income, to a life of risk and excitement” (40).  In short, Capitalism is not a vice fueled economy (greed), but an ethic.  He speaks of Protestants delaying their leisure to later gratify; they conclude it is better to make money while they still can so that the future has an abundance of security.  But does Weber leave out the evidence and expect us to just naturally agree?  No, he does elaborate in his second part where he gives his logical train of thought and his own observances to how society has created capitalism as we know it.  He covers Calvinism, Pietism, Methodism and even the Baptists.  He compares with great insight saying that even these Protestants (so full of grace) have their own “worldly” asceticism.  But, of course no literature written by man is free of defect.  Weber fails to define capitalism at all.  Even if he does describe the system categorized as capitalism, he leaves out a simplified definition which might help understand if his thesis was correct.  Not only this, but he does not approach and falsify other theories that might have explained the rise of capitalism.  He does say things like “on the other hand . . . .”, but this does little to give us a broader picture of the debate.
So what was Weber’s idea of capitalism?  His idea of capitalism is either born out of, or the same idea as the protestant ethic.  This ethic is a nominalization “delayed gratification” as mentioned earlier; in “human” terms the ethic is the individuals decision to put of pleasure now and enjoy the fruits of your labor, later.  Basically, Protestants had the notion that it is better to stay working and always profiting than to take any sort of leisure or contentment with their position.  Weber says, “In fact, the summum bonum of this ethic, the earning of more and more money, combined with the strict avoidance of all spontaneous enjoyment of life, is above all completely devoid of any eudaemonistic, not to say hedonistic, admixture (53).”  He directly contradicts the “greed” theory.  Weber does not consider the basic economic philosophy of capitalism.  He denies capitalism is greed, which is a valid claim. What then is it?  Is it just Protestants as a culture?  Is capitalism dependant on a cultural notion?  Weber presumes an economic relationship of the peoples to be no account.  The reader is left with too many questions.  Weber in his book would like you to just assent to the idea, but other theorist argue more.  Weber ought to have asked why capitalism is appealing.  What separates it from other economic philosophies?  Other economies have been subject to greed, which Weber agrees with is in all economies, but perhaps capitalism is set apart from other economies because all participants, in theory, win.  The fabled win/win situation is present in capitalism.  As a business sets its price for its product, only the people who are willing to part with the cash value will purchase it.  At the end of the transaction the business is happy with the money they made, and the customer is happy with the product they purchased; neither of them abandoned, suffering from buyer’s remorse.  He wants to suppose that capitalism (the economic superstructure) was created by the culture of Protestantism (The Base).  This is irresponsible to ignore the economic philosophy of capitalism.  Instead his education made Weber into a man learned of dialectic history.  He concerned himself only with two cultures butting heads and the victor.  It is a fine theory to hold, but it ought not be presumed when your readership may not understand or follow the claims.  For all of Weber’s argument he lacks a complete presentation.

As far as the composition of the book it could have used more falsification.  Weber asserts that capitalism is not greed.  Why not?  He only says capitalism is not greed, because all other economies have greed in them as well.  He refutes nothing here, and if Weber meant it to be an argument it was just an informal fallacy.  An argument is not valid if it says, “Since all elements of group A have characteristic B, then A is not B.”  I had mentioned before his attempt at a non-bias approach by adding sentences with the phrase “on the other hand”, but he did nothing with the suggestion.  He did not actually give us the opposing argument or strive to refute them.  The points he disguised as refutations, were only working in his favor as leading statements.  That said, Weber is clearly a well thought and educated man.  We should take him seriously, but when a scholar publishes a book and it arrives at any sort of prominence they must take the necessary steps to have a completely fair appraisal.  When anybody proposes a thesis it is incumbent on them to not only bring up the best of the opposite arguments but to refute them as well.

It was an enjoyable read and I ended up agreeing with him part of the way.  His points were valid and logical and I appreciated his story line.  Of course there are flaws, which were his ignoring of the economic philosophy and his failure to falsify both his and the enemies position.  Overall, one should not be bent out of shape about these mistakes, but it is good to be aware of them.