I was recently in Europe, partly for a vacation and partly for a series of talks in Austria. During the trip I had the pleasure of touring a major church and hearing the guide answer questions. Someone asked, why did people of the distant past support the church so stupendously, with so much of their time, nearly all their income beyond subsistence, and, really, their every life product?
The guide answered, I think brilliantly. She said, you have to try to imagine being back there yourself. There was no sewage, no electricity, no color, no music, no entertainment, not even cleanliness, in people’s daily lives. It was harsh, harsh, and more harsh – except when you went to the church. From dumping waste out windows and working to the bone in colorless and anti social contexts, in church, one entered into a bit of heaven on earth. In church people were friendly and socialized. In church it was clean. In church the windows were incredibly colorful, the seats better than bearable. In church there was music from the organs, an incredible experience beyond anything available anywhere else, and there was even an element of intellectual engagement, also absent elsewhere. In church there was relative safety…color….sound….life. It was what people lived for, around, and in.
The church wasn’t just rhetoric, it was literally heaven manifested today. The church was hope and inspiration, color and cleanliness, activity and more activity. And so, of course, given that the church was what made life worth living, and given the church what promised better in the future, people coughed up their first and last pennies for the church. Even more than in modern times. Way more. And they weren’t tricked. Given the constrained settings they inhabited, their perceptions were accurate, and their choices sensible – that is, short of completely transforming the history.
Think about the growth of the fundamentalist church in recent years in the U.S. and, say, in Pakistan. People aren’t giving as much – true – but the logic is the same and what you might say is people are part of the church and supporting it more or less in proportion as the church is contributing to their material, spiritual, emotional, ideological, and inspirational, existence in return.
And what is the lesson in all this? I don’t see how it could be clearer – from the angle the tour guide illuminated, and many other angles as well.
Якщо кампанія зі створення кращого світу – яка є лівою – хоче мати підтримку величезної кількості людей, які інакше застрягли та обмежені, тоді ця кампанія має включати насіння майбутнього в сьогодення. Ліві мають допомагати життям людей зараз, додаючи фарб, співчуття, креативності, а особливо почуття причетності та соціальної радості, і в той же час вони повинні обіцяти ще більше, набагато більше в майбутньому. Люди повинні прийти до того, щоб побачити й відчути лівих як тих, хто вони є, чим вони можуть насолоджуватися сьогодні та що надихає їх шукати більше завтра. Не досягнувши такого рівня центральної ролі в житті людей, ліві не матимуть достатнього членства, достатньо відданого, щоб виграти навіть серйозні реформи, а тим більше принципово нові суспільні відносини.
Okay, is that claim true or false?
If it is false – fine, dispense with it and move on.
But if the claim is true, then doesn’t it follow that a left which isn’t addressing this agenda is a left that isn’t even trying to achieve its destiny? No wonder we aren’t winning yet. On the other hand, if the claim is true, then since the implication is so evident, isn’t it time to get on with recreating our efforts in a far more uplifting and humane and socially engaging and intellectually stimulating and artistic and creative shape and substance?
ZNetwork фінансується виключно завдяки щедрості своїх читачів.
Задонатити