I am as free as Nature first made man/Ere the base laws of servitude began/When wild in woods the noble savage ran/Before all those missionaries showed up and started trashing things, Science curse them!
I am not the world’s most loyal listener of the Glenn and Helen show, but I always like what I do catch. This week’s episode is well worth your time.
What caught my eye was the surname of the guests. The episode is an interview with brother and sister Claire and Mischa Berlinski, who are promoting two novels they’ve just published contemporaneously. I’ve read a few essays and one book by their father, and judging from the interview, the apples clearly have not fallen far from the tree. These people may very well be Platonically ideal dinner company: well-rounded, well-spoken, spirited, even-handed, and just the most fundamentally interesting people you could hope to know. It doesn’t hurt the interview that these two are clearly a very loving brother and sister who enjoy each other quite a bit and are accustomed to thinking and working together on worthy things.
Mischa’s book is called Fieldwork. It’s about the epic struggle between two powerful enemies of the natural world: missionaries and anthropologists. It is discussed between 8:14 and 15:30 in the podcast. Go listen now, then we’ll talk about it.
I’ll wait.
…
No, for real, listen to it.
…
Okay, welcome back.
Being somewhat familiar with the elder Berlinski, I can’t say I was surprised to find Mischa being sympathetic toward Christian missionaries and turning a bit of a jaundiced eye toward anthropologists as they are normally found in the wild. The Berlinksi father, though a self-described agnostic Jew, has some philosophical commitments which are otherwise strongly correlated with Christianity, most notably metaphysical realism and a comfort with the broad idea of Intelligent Design. Claire and Mischa are quick to point out that they are no evangelicals, and they and their hosts do indulge a near-chuckle at the expense of the evangelical worldview that comports with that of the indigenous animists who provide the setting for the novel. (Although the missionaries may assign a slightly different ontological pedigree to the spirits that torment the tribal people, they believe just as fervently that evil spirits are quite real, and quite able to be defeated by the Gospel. This seemed slightly bemusing to everybody on the podcast, but their bemusement was subtle, brief and really not all that disrespectful.)
Anthropologists, Mischa said, are almost more religious than missionaries. They see a kind of spiritual deliverance in their field work, claiming that you can never truly know yourself until you’ve left your culture of origin and immersed yourself in the life of the Other. Only then can you learn your true identity, learning what belongs uniquely to you and what is what is cultural accident. What struck me about that statement is that I’ve heard very similar things from missionaries whose work has been deeply and incarnationally cross-cultural. Immersion in another culture for years does make indelible changes in a person, and it does reveal some deeply held beliefs to be contingent and culturally conditioned. Of course, an evangelical missionary would stop short of making this a religious experience: the soul is not redeemed by learning to eat weird foods, speak hard languages, and criticize the Bush Doctrine. The soul just gets to know itself a little better.
Still, the podcast is a good listen. Never have I been disappointed by the show, but the most recent installment is particularly delightful. Enjoy.
-
- Posted by Tim on Monday, February 26, 2007 at 8:49:53 am PST
- Category: Religion
- Comment RSS Feed
2 Responses to “I am as free as Nature first made man/Ere the base laws of servitude began/When wild in woods the noble savage ran/Before all those missionaries showed up and started trashing things, Science curse them!”
Tim,
First encountered you on the IOF started by Phil Estes. Found the link from Phil Jr’s site and really enjoyed looking through the contemp. music discussion. As to form/content I assume you have read Neil Postman “Amusing…” I took it as an outstanding read, very aware of the reality of entertainment and music for that matter. I plan to read Meyers in prep for some class units I have to teach. I use also Allen Bloom’s chapter on music form his “Closing…” If you’ve not seen that it is well worth the read.
I try to approach this in an intro. to phil. class I teach b/c I think we underestimate music as a force, deciding it is good if it is ‘good for me’. Still working at how to do it better. I draw a bit from Plato (essentially, ‘give me the music and I’ll control the culture’ and other helpful observations), but I really struggle to thread through some of the stuff that arose in this discussion. I believe rock has largely contributed to the demise of our culture and that , if that is true, we can’t ignore that fact and glibly borrow the form with ‘worship’ words attached. The “…mom” writer makes a great observation there near the end. “Music matters…then, well, maybe it doesn’t, it’s the words.” I try to work from the idea that if music is NOT amoral we have got to make some judgments. Seems like when college students abandon that mantra (’amorality’) then we can get somewhere. Until then, hard to make any headway.
Well, this is a rambling comment, but would be happy for some synopsis ideas on how to deal with the question. My objective is to show that music is indeed not amoral, that it is soul-forming and thus hugely important (esp. in light of its ubiquitous presence) and that therefore we need to find some points of reference that transcend personal opinion, beginning by assuming that such points actually exist in the world that is. I’m sure Meyers will help me, but would welcome pointers from you.
I like your writing — glad I finally got over to check it out. Stop by the IOF again — save some of us (read ME) from the threat of hubris. (OF course right now no one is saying anything, which is too much the case most of the time.)
Blessings,
Randy
BTW, the early opposing commenter took strong issue with Meyers. THis sounds pro. hom. I know, but seems like his personal credentials give him credibility from the start (Mars Hill, etc.) I was puzzled at how she dismissed him. And her example of unclear thinking by him sounded fine to me. Guess I was missing something.
Comment Permalink | Posted on February 27th, 2007 at 11:38 pm |Tim,
Comment Permalink | Posted on February 28th, 2007 at 1:33 pm |Thanks for the link to the Glenn and Helen Show. Mischa had some interesting observations; I may want to read his novel sometime.
John