I’d put this in the comments on Justin’s post, but Milliner’s review of Avatar and its conservative reviewers merits deserves a broad audience.
The blue people do it better. Harmony with nature, respect for food sources, sensitivity to the earth, liturgical vitality, rites of passage, lifelong marriage commitments, horse whispering—all the key ingredients to a harmonious agrarian society. How could one not be attracted to the ideals so beautifully presented in this film? The problem is, Avatar is not describing how the world might be if Wendell Berry were president; it’s describing a world without a Fall.
Milliner’s analysis is, in my opinion, the definitive word on the film. He understands why post-Avatar depression seems to be a real phenomenon:
Seen not only through 3-D glasses, but through the lens of Lewis’Space Trilogy, Avatar emerges not as a defense of Pantheism, an anti-American screed or as a vision of ideals realizable on this planet: Instead, it’s a depiction of Eden.
January 12th, 2010 | 1:35 pm | #1
I really, really like Milliner’s work at millinerd (would that a tenth of evangelicals have his wisdom), but I found this particular piece uncharacteristically weak. And I wouldn’t say anything except for my fondness of FPR.
He bills Stegall’s review at FPR (and indeed the whole FPR project) as motivated by a desire to return to Eden and the belief it is possible to do so.
I see why such an evaluation might be plausible for the occasional FPR lurker, and I actually don’t know whether Stegall himself believes a return to Eden is possible or desirable. Milliner is certainly right to condemn that project, if anyone holds it.
I think, though, that the goal of FPR is not quite so idealistic (and thus unrealistic) as a return to Eden. The goal, as seen in countless FPR posts, is not the elimination of history (which a return to Eden necessitates) but the recovery of memory which is indeed the opposite of such an elimination. Nor is it a total rejection of the goods we have inherited and received over time, but a recognition that such goods are not pure (and thus immune from criticism), but are reflective of their historical development, which is always sin-laden. Contrary to a lack of realism, then, the goal of FPR is to understood and wisely act upon the present and historical realities of life in late modernity.
It is here that the tables may be turned a bit. Is it a sign of realism to laud the small moral successes in the marketplace represented by CSAs and say nothing of Wall St. raking in billions and Walmart displacing more and more small businesses, as if CSAs are the dominant norm of our politicoeconomic order rather than the exception? I believe in appealing to desires and not just waving sticks (as happens often in some circles), but it is realistic to see our pursuits in the current democratic capitalist order as merely a fair contest on the playing field of beauty? Or are there other considerations shaping the playing field, considerations that FPR routinely discuss but that are often ignored by those with more faith in the neutrality of economic modernity, considerations that may call for a rejection of some cultural practices and institutions, contingent on the communal needs, loves, and other particularities of local places?
It is true that we cannot return to Eden. But perhaps it is too easy for some to mistake the desire for redemption for a desire to see Eden. In the end, those on the cruciform road ought not ignore Eden, for that is from where we have come.
January 12th, 2010 | 3:34 pm | #2
Thank you Alan for this helpful critique. Clearly my appreciation for FPR didn’t come through. Allow me to clarify: I was trying to point out that when Stegall pointed to Avatar as an illustration of FPR principles and Wendell Berry’s ideas, it was he who was (if my interpretation of the film is convincing) locating those principles in Eden. I might have trashed those principles as unrealizable. Instead, I tried to distinguish between the “purest” of them and the very real need to uplift them even if they can’t be realized perfectly. You can call it, to use Stegall’s position towards other conservatives, “loyal opposition.”
As to whether or not I am being realistic, I can only answer that critique – to be true to FPR principles – locally: I am a long time supporter of CSA, and have successfully encouraged many of my friends to to do the same. In this little BoBo paradise called Princeton (deeply uncharacteristic of American life), CSA really does compete with local supermarkets, including the supposedly “local” Whole Foods. Likewise, I would love to live walkable urbanism in this town, and do so as I can. But it is wildly unaffordable to live like that here (as it is in most of America). Hence I continue to talk about such ideas, repeatedly and hopefully putting forward Philip Bess’ injuction: “The way to make traditional urbanism less expensive is to make it less rare.”
I think this approach has more prospects for success than positing CSA and urbanism as ways to rage against the machine, which is sometimes (not always) how such practices are described. I’ve done too much raging already. For goodness’ sake, I used to have dreadlocks.
My time here is short, and I’d rather spend my time in outright protest of more obvious, indisputable injustices, and there are, sadly, plenty of those to choose from.
January 12th, 2010 | 3:36 pm | #3
By the way Albert, I have absolutely no idea why I called you Alan.
January 12th, 2010 | 8:10 pm | #4
Thanks for this perspective. I was content to give Avatar a pass on principle (not frustratingly predictable pseudo-Christian principle, mind you, just didn’t want to get sucked into the hype and further pad Mr. Cameron’s God and government hating pockets).
But I just love it when someone like him manages in spite of himself to agree with God.
I think the Bible’s pretty clear in indicating that those who love God can look forward to a future that’s even better than Eden.
And that’s why now I really want to see the movie. Thanks again.
January 13th, 2010 | 11:41 am | #5
Thanks for the clarification, millinerd. And don’t worry about the Alan. That happens more than you’d think.
I don’t mean to suggest your appreciation of FPR is lacking. I think I was still a bit confused by this sentence:
… where it seems there are FPR ideals that are “suited” to a world that no longer exists (one without a Fall) and yet should still be promoted. I suspect a explanation might require getting too deep into specific “ideals” and so a bit off-topic, so I’m not asking for it, but I did see some tension there.
The realism question of “what now?” does depend on what injustice is obvious to us. Yet what is obviously unjust depends on our social situation, what pains we are exposed to, and what loves we have lost. It is not obvious to most Americans why Wendell Berry cares about a mountain-top in Kentucky. What was going on in Germany in ’20s and ’30s wasn’t obvious to the Germans then, and what happened in the U.S. during WWI still isn’t obvious to Americans. And economic injustices are not obvious in an area filled with socioeconomic winners like Princeton, where I lived for four years, but which are obvious to metal shop workers in places that have lost out, including places in NJ a few hours north from Princeton where I’m originally from. How can we make things more obvious to those far away who have power over us? In the absence of shared life, perhaps only by talking about them over the internet.
I wonder about rage as well because it is often ugly and unproductive. And yet, conversations with the bereft will sometimes be an entrance into a rage which is at least imperfectly legitimate–and if we believe the psalmist, it is heard by the God who makes things grow.
January 14th, 2010 | 9:50 pm | #6
Albert,
Without getting into the specific policy issues that you wisely suggest we avoid, one example of uplifting “Edenic” principles even in a fallen world would be Matthew: 19:8. Also important, of course, is to keep in mind what Rachael articulates above. Our hope is better than Eden.
I suppose your paralleling Berry’s concerns with Germany in the 20′s and 30′s is where we part ways. I think he’s a beautiful and important writer. As I tried to hint at in the article, Lewis was onto similar themes in “That Hideous Strength,” and I think those themes should be celebrated, and realized when possible. But realization is tricky. Berry was a major part of my undergraduate curriculum, and he was billed to me as the writer I needed to know inside and out. I’ll admit to some disillusionment when I discovered that, for some people, McDonald’s was the only option they had. Doing work in the inner-city (I haven’t always lived in Princeton), I found a major disconnect between Berry’s ideals and the good that I felt could be realized in a seriously impoverished situation. Perhaps I might have pressed on and reconciled my experience with my Berry’s thought, and I’m sure some articulate Berry disciple could have helped me do just that, but I’ve since been a bit skeptical (though I hope in no way dismissive or unappreciative). It’s the problem that comes with a given writer becoming popular enough to get heavily assigned to undergraduates.
I do think rage has its place, but to rage against grocery stores that actually feed people, however imperfectly, and restaurants that really employ people, boring as those jobs may be, seems out of place. I’m all for improvement. But in those cases, I would hope for market changes to be more subtly affected by consumer education, which can actually work. Hence the need to discuss localism, rootedness, CSA, urbanism, etc. I think it might even be working, because people aren’t as demented by our market system, I think, as some seem to believe.
As to those metal-workers, it’s a sad reality to be sure. But I fear the injustices that would arise from artificially regulating economies to keep certain interest groups employed could conceivably be much worse.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact