Such is the story of Ann Boleyn and “the other Boleyn girl,” Mary, Ann’s younger sister. The first ended up with her head chopped off, the second in exile – thanks to their loving family, which introduced both girls to Henry’s court for his sole use and pleasure, to serve as concubines once it became apparent that Catherine of Aragon, Henry’s lawful wife, was about to fall into disfavor.
Where am I going with this?
First, let’s just say that we’ll never go back to “the good old days” when women were so mistreated. Our history is replete with pendulum swings, with significant shifts forward only to experience a reversal — two steps forward, then one step back. But it is also true that the voice of reaction will take you back only so far, and no further. Parts of our past are irretrievable.
Why? Simply because the gains we’ve made have trickled down to the popular consciousness, precluding any possibility of radical backsliding. This is true of any area of human relations where gross injustices were once prevalent throughout our inglorious past only to be rectified, in light of heightened consciousness, in times since, including the present, . We simply can’t turn our blind eye anymore on practices we now regard as abhorrent : slavery, exploitation of women, discrimination against gays, African-Americans and the handicapped, unfair labor practices and sexual discrimination in the workplace, glass ceilings and all such; any practice, in fact, which only a while ago was considered the norm, but which now seems to violate our common sensibilities and consciousness Too much time has elapsed ever to revert to our old barbaric selves and the barbaric views which were part and parcel of them. Once we acquire a third eye, it’s impossible to shed it. If that is not an argument for progress, I don’t know what is.
Which brings me to another, more perturbing, because it seems to fly in the face of ordinary understanding, question: Why did it take us so long? Must we traverse two thousand years of darkness and oblivion to realize finally that certain rules of conduct, especially in such matters as justice and equality under the law, are not privileges to be accorded to the few but, by their very nature, ought to apply to all humans regardless of gender, skin color, or ethnic background?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Irene Wagner
Humanity is on the march? It's looking more like a post-KO stagger at the moment.
Humanity has been on the march before, and on the stagger, and will be on the march again, and on the stagger...It's a cycle, and that should keep us hopeful, but humbly hopeful.
The seeds for a harmonious world are all there liberally sprinkled throughout the the world's most ancient writings: "Treat people the way you'd want to be treated." Compassion and the quest for truth and fairness have been with man since his earliest days (arguably) or at least for a very long time. And so has a lot of other nonsense.
2 - roger nowosielski
Right, Irene. But what's unique about modernity is that these "insights" are no longer just the special preserve of the few - the brightest lights of the day - but have more or less become part of parcel of everyday, mass consciousness.
That's, in essence, the crux of my argument. So I'm hoping here for a kind of momentum and reaching "the critical mass," so that we'll never again revert to our ugly past.
3 - Irene Wagner
Unfortunately, Roger, Guttenberg's invention doesn't just allow GOOD ideas to be more widely disseminated. I'm not even sure what a cross section of "everyday mass consciousness" looks like. If its the BC Politics section, then its a schizophrenic consciousness indeed!
4 - roger nowosielski
I try to address the question in the sequel. No, I wouldn't think that BC offers much hope for the future. We're far too impressed with ourselves to do much good.
But the Gutenberg invention did pave the way to Reformation, Pauline theology, individual reading of the Scriptures, and it did break the stronghold of the Catholic church.
5 - Irene Wagner
I appreciate the optimistic tone of your article, Roger. There's inspiration to be found looking BACK in time, too, that's all. A humble, gentle way of seeing oneself in relation to the rest of creation isn't something that has to be invented or evolved into. It's always been there for anyone, scholars and the simple peasant to give himself over to. Frequent reminders have been necessary, however, hence the prevalence of the theme in literature and philosophy. The idea that "I am god--anything I do to make myself wealthy and powerful is justifiable" is an attractive alternative that needs to be countered again and again.
The sunniest days in history are the days when kings have not left the Golden Rule to stay buried in their well-appointed libraries, but have gotten it into their hearts. I hope there are days like that ahead on the near horizon, too. Meanwhile, the Golden Rule can still have tremendous power.
6 - roger nowosielski
We're past the Golden Age, Irene; but then again, the Golden Age was never so golden to the masses.
I do believe we've made tremendous strides in the past fifty years in terms of eradicating some of the most glaring injustices which afflicted much of our society; and I'd like to believe these gains are irreversible.
I realize this optimism may not be well-grounded, especially with those who subscribe to the final, eschatological solution. Personally, I myself have serious reservations concerning the extent to which we can ever achieve "a perfect society."
So this is more in the nature of exhortation, to hold on to our gains.
As I said, I examine the prospects in the sequel. A sense of idealism, a rather novel element in the history of human movements, seems to be the key - the trademark of the New Left born out of Vietnam protest.
Whether it will sustain itself to build up sufficient momentum and critical mass in light of the impending crisis - that's another question. I certainly hope so.
7 - Irene Wagner
OK then, ROger, you know that as a Christian I'd have to admit there was a bit of a quantum leap in terms of the potential for human morality when Jesus Christ showed up on the scene. The reach of the Golden Rule was even to extend to ones enemies, according to Jesus. Not torturing them would appear to be a good start, yes.
8 - Mr. Dock Ellis
"We shall never again suffer a national disgrace"
Sounds like a line out of "Confederacy of Dunces"
I guess this works as satire.
As for Guttenberg, the printing press was initially used mostly for medieval porn.
Better luck with the next one.
9 - roger nowosielski
Right. But Christianity became dormant within a hundred or so years since Christ's death, known only to the initiates, more of a cult than anything else. Even with Constantine who made it the official religion, things haven't changed much. The word of God wasn't really accessible to the masses, except through interpretations of monks and then the institution of the Church. Reformation was the turning point, because it made it possible for every individual to digest the word of God according to their own best light.
Well, I view the explosion in mass communications and the media in pretty much the same way. And I don't really believe that the human rights which have been won in the past fifty years or so would have been won in the absence of that explosion.
10 - roger nowosielski
Judging by some of your pieces, Mr. Ellis, you should be the least qualified to speak, especially as regards the reference to "the dunces."
Apparently, there's something that perturbs you about this piece to evoke your kind response. Is it perhaps that you disagree with some of the correctives which have become part and parcel of American consciousness? Should women or the blacks still be treated as chattel and denied their right to vote?
It would help if you were to express the exact nature of your discontent rather than dealing with vague generalities. Then perhaps we could have a semblance of a reasoned discussion.
So the ball is in your court, Mr. Ellis. I'm game if you are.
11 - roger nowosielski
I suppose Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, Mr. Ellis, is pornography to you.
Just keep on talking, because every word that comes out of your mouth paints a picture that's louder than a thousand words.
12 - Baronius
The Reformation was characterized by dozens of German princes shifting loyalties and forcing their subjects to change religious practices in an effort to procure church property. Roger, it was nothing like the triumph of learning that you're describing.
13 - Irene Wagner
Baronius, I can't say that I'm sorry the Reformation happened. I wonder what would have happened, though, if the papacy had been bestowed on someone like Erasmus. Reformation might have been a little more John Seventeenish.
14 - Baronius
Irene, I wouldn't expect you to concede the whole shebang. It's just that Roger's analysis seems to require a prior example of unambiguous goodness flowing from an increase in human knowledge, and I don't think the Reformation is a good example.
15 - Irene Wagner
I see, Baronius. There may be more common ground if we focus less on "Reformation" and more on "Guttenberg." Aren't most Bible-reading Catholics today happy to be able to read Jesus' words for themselves, in their own language? "...Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest..."
As far as the human knowledge-driven unambigous flow of goodness goes, I'm not sure I understand how Roger is drawing a parallel between the invention of the printing press and what is "going down" today--that may be in the sequel.
In 2009, who are those waiting in darkness to see a great light? The Wahabis? The fundamentalist anythings? The New atheists?
16 - Baronius
Pre-Gutenberg, if you could read, you could read Latin. If you were like most people and couldn't read, you needed someone to tell you what the Bible said anyway. Considering my level of comprehension in Latin, I'm glad the Bible's available in English.
17 - roger nowosielski
Well, let's just say Martin Luther. But there surely was some goodness derived from humanism, Erasmus being one example.
Do we really want to argue that there is no light unless it proceeds from the Scriptures? And in a larger sense, doesn't that light emanate from one and the same source?
My take on Gutenberg is that it's the first in a series of technological revolutions which led to explosion and dissemination of knowledge. The Age of Enlightenment and the works of the philosophes is another notable example. The explosion in mass communications and the media is the trademark of modernity.
18 - Doug Hunter
You're making the common mistake of removing social progress from the context of material and technological progress. Don't be confused and think the former leads to the latter, it's quite the reverse. Sure it's great to provide a child a meal or an education but when your family was starving or dying of the plague it took a backseat. Women were treated like financial liabilities because under those circumstances they were. I'm not denying there has been progress, it's just not that people have suddenly become enlightened it's the world is just an easier place to live in and get along these days.
I hope none of us or our children ever get to see what would happen if humanity returned to basic survival mode. I bet you'd be surprised how quickly social progress would regress.
19 - Irene Wagner
I know what you mean, Baronius, but if I had to make the tough choice of having the Bible available to me in only one of two ways: having it read to me in English or having my own copy in Latin to study...I'd be learning Latin p.d.velociter.
It's a moot point though. William Tyndale had a
20 - Irene Wagner
William Tyndale had a "plow-boy-appropriate" English version ready and waiting for Gutenberg.
Ah CHOO.
21 - Irene Wagner
But neither I nor Baronius were arguing that only scripture had light to give, Roger.
Doug Hunter, do you think there are places in the world today where people are in every-man-for-himself-survival-mode?
Would it be Darfur if it were any place at all? It seems if anyone should have a "right" to let go of the idea of social progress it would be the survivors of those horrors, and instead, many of them seem strangely "refined." OK I've said enough, will shut up now.
22 - roger nowosielski
Doug,
I'm not minimizing the importance of social progress, Doug, and my account of the rise of modern consciousness wasn't meant to be exhaustive. The point of the article, rather, was simply to acknowledge the fact. And mass communications and media are modern phenomena which make it possible for the whole masses of people to become exposed to ideas and realm of thought that transcends their immediate local, their immediate and parochial interest. The explosion of knowledge on a mass scale is a parallel development.
In any case, the kind of sensibilities and awareness that in the past may have been shared by the most advanced/enlightened members of society have become more or less commonplace. And regardless of the multitude of causes that brought this about, this is a typically modern phenomenon.
My arguments, more than anything else, concerns the significance of it. (So you have misinterpreted this article when you thought I was providing a full account or tracing the causal or whatever relationships you're alluding to. It would be impossible, IMO, in the format provided, to even attempt such an ambitious undertaking).
As to the possibility of regression, yes - it's a very real thing and I do address it in the sequel. Civilization is a very thin veneer, I agree.
23 - roger nowosielski
Irene #21,
I'm aware you haven't. But the most immediate and probably the most enduring effect of the "Gutenberg Galaxy" (look up Marshal McLuhan) was printing of Bible - still number one (I think) on the bestsellers list.
24 - Doug Hunter
First of all, I disagree that there are any meaningful 'correct' morals. Those are just fluid concepts designed to best fit humans into the situation they find themselves. Technology has made life relatively easy and our morals have shifted during that time to reflect the new reality.
If your question is social 'progress' I'd suggest technological progress is the answer you are looking for. (your article did mention the printing press, etc.)
One day perhaps great automated machines can make make everything for us and achieve consciousness. They will scoff at us 21st century folk for our wage slavery and our brutality to machines (they are people to). Also, we put criminals in cages when all you needed to do was implant a microchip that would preempt any further criminal activity... how barbaric! Those are all great morals but they don't make sense and wouldn't work at our current technological level.
I know you alluded to these concepts in your story, I'm just providing the context I think best fits: which is technological progress is the cause and leads to moral progress, not some magical evolution in our species or 'enlightenment'.
25 - roger nowosielski
Doug,
You do raise some very interesting points. But consider - the very fact that even you consider our present practices as "barbaric" is already an indication of some concept/s you have which are more "humane" or equitable or whatever. Even when you judge the present administration or criticize it, you do so in terms of some ideas of right and wrong, in the context of (your view of) what are the proper rights, personal responsibility, and so on - and this is a moral context. When you form an opinion on certain Supreme Court decisions or other legislation, you don't judge any such strictly in terms of their efficiency or anticipated effects, or only in terms of the Constitution, but also in terms whether they're just. The whole idea of a state is predicated on some conception(s) of justice; and if the state fails to measure up, the citizens have a right to overthrow it. The gap you're talking about has to do with implementation: we may not yet have the technology, e.g., to treat the prisoners more humanely, but we already have a number of ideas as to what a more humane treatment would be like.
Your balking at "correct" morals could be further dissolved if you were to focus on the gap between "actuality" and "potentiality." The ideals are there; it's just that we haven't got there yet. The entire criminal law, imperfect as it is, is based on what we think is right or wrong, and at any point reflects our best understanding at the time: it's not just a matter of social convention.
The same with consciousness. It's necessarily incomplete and therefore imperfect. So my argument in effect is not that we have discovered or rediscovered what some people in the past had known all along - only that technological developments in mass communications and the media made that knowledge and understanding available to all (if only because of increased literacy).
And it is this fact, I suggest, which is a rather novel development. We've never been in that situation before.
One final example. Same with public opinion. A couple of centuries ago, there was hardly any such thing. Today, public opinion shapes the policy. And the notion of public opinion (serving as it does in today's world) is co-extensive in my thinking to the great strides we've made in the area of "mass consciousness."