I've only seen the movie, which I understood cut a lot of (not all) Christian references from the book. It was still pretty powerful. I'll put the novel on my reading list!
The DVD I have/had of the film featured a commentary track, including a take on the film by S. Zizek which riled me up a bit. Years ago, Ken Myers of Mars Hill Audio did one or two interviews with P.D. James, and I'd like to find and listen to those again. I'll send links if you're interested!
And yes, along with many other significant story elements and characters, a lot of Christian material found in the book is sort-of expurgated from the film.
There are some intersting Zizek comments on the the final scene of the film with the rootless boat, cutting ourselves off from the past as the condition needed for renewal, etc. The book, however, ends with a christening of the child, naming the child with the name of older generations, and the sign of the cross made on the baby, a remarkable difference compared to Zizek's take & the film, a telling contrast.
In fairness, though, there some artful and subtle ways the film backweaves into the screenplay some discreet Xian imagery and vibe, and it's arguable that the film's making the mother of the new humanity a immigrant/refugee girl pregnant in a cow barn offers a more compelling Christian-esque alternative than the mother in the book. In any case, the film is really quite good - I'm thinking the book and film are related but different, but both excellent stories in their own ways.
Rawls wrote "Political Liberalism" to respond to the critique that his "Theory of Justice" was in fact a different manifestation: "metaphysical liberalism." The book fails to make the case: He excludes all reasons based in religion from public discourse, thereby giving liberalism the role of a religion, by default and de facto.
But the distinction is extremely important, even if it proves impossible to sustain in the long run. Many of us still see the Bill of Rights as articles of peace, rather than articles of faith. For 250 years they have given us a remarkably stable way of doing life together, fairly peaceably, despite really important differences. (And that one major historical exception proved to confirm the rule and to expand it. Contrary to sniffy objections, the SOLDIERS were primarily fighting for or against SLAVERY, not mere economic advantage.)
To the extent that it is a culture, 250 unbroken years seems pretty adaptive, relatively.
But that's the question: Is it a culture?
Or has it shaped and misshaped its host culture? I think it has.
Liberalism is parasitic on the very institutions necessary for its maintenance. It erodes the family, the church, the bowling league, the community, the local school.... And it does this not so much ideologically, though it does erode them that way also. Mostly though, it makes us less practically dependent on one another, every day, in thousands of ways. Through the forces of the free market, mass communication, urbanization, and especially, technology, I just don't need you. Or at least, I can survive pretty well MATERIALLY without you. Because technology. (And free markets, etc.)
I agree completely that the church is the answer. (For Christians. Non-Christians may look to respective, contrary conceptions of the good life for similar conclusions; I hope that Christians can support their efforts as co-belligerents in this kulturkampf.) Practically, that looks like laborious decision-making that leans against the eroding forces of liberalism. It means living as resident aliens in Babylon, seeking the welfare of the city, even as the city resists what it so desperately needs.
And it means that even as we-the-very-online use all these means, we demonstrate concretely and in our daily existence that we can live very well without them.
Thanks — seeking the welfare of the city around us is key. I see Christian culture as offering healthy competition to the imperial anti-culture, but not in a zero-sum existential way.
I think the main problem with convincing people to reverse back into a 2,000 year-old cultural tradition, no matter how desirable or even necessary its tenets might be, is that it's had had its day and the result was the opposite of what it ostensibly proclaimed, namely centuries of internecine warfare and bloodshed. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, many succumb to a literalist interpretation of ancient texts, regarded as divinely inspired, which are then used to support whatever proclivities that particular social group favours, to the exclusion of all others. These 'others' are then regarded as 'unregenerate', 'unsaved', 'unbelievers', 'infidels' or whatever, and in extremis their annihilation can be easily justified. This is happening now in Gaza, where fundamentalism on both sides has surely contributed to the current impasse. I don't have an answer or even an alternative, but I think looking backwards can often result in losing sight of where you're going.
Your whole premise is on very shaky ground. The very large increases in suicide and reduction in lifespan and sexual activity are precipitously shown occurring with the rise of social media. Liberalism isn't the problem and we really don't have a capitalist society. It's corrupt crony capitalism and completely rigged by oligarchy. Meanwhile Christian evangelicals will come out in droves to vote for a serial rapist for president so you're losing me here! Vladimir Putin is trying to sell the same crap over there as is Victor orban. I don't want to live in either of those societies. Most of my religious friends understand that the separation of church and state is a bedrock of our democracy
Where do I argue for losing the distinction between church and state? Where do I even talk about church-state relationships in this post? Yes, social media plays an important role in the negative indicators I've pointing to, but atomization was well advanced long before the internet, as Robert Putnam was already warning about in the 1990s with Bowling Alone. Any social system, no matter how beneficial, has inherent problems. A system dedicated to maximizing individual autonomy will inevitably end up creating loneliness and anomie. Durkheim was pointing this out 130 years ago. That doesn't mean other social systems don't have their own problems.
Absolutely brilliant, thought-provoking writing!
Aw, thanks!
You've put me in mind to have another go at P.D. James' "The Children of Men".
I've only seen the movie, which I understood cut a lot of (not all) Christian references from the book. It was still pretty powerful. I'll put the novel on my reading list!
The DVD I have/had of the film featured a commentary track, including a take on the film by S. Zizek which riled me up a bit. Years ago, Ken Myers of Mars Hill Audio did one or two interviews with P.D. James, and I'd like to find and listen to those again. I'll send links if you're interested!
Please do!
Here is Zizek on Children of Men (film).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbgrwNP_gYE (the
The PD James interviews with Ken Meyers I am having a hard time digging up - maybe you can find them via Mars Hill.
And yes, along with many other significant story elements and characters, a lot of Christian material found in the book is sort-of expurgated from the film.
There are some intersting Zizek comments on the the final scene of the film with the rootless boat, cutting ourselves off from the past as the condition needed for renewal, etc. The book, however, ends with a christening of the child, naming the child with the name of older generations, and the sign of the cross made on the baby, a remarkable difference compared to Zizek's take & the film, a telling contrast.
In fairness, though, there some artful and subtle ways the film backweaves into the screenplay some discreet Xian imagery and vibe, and it's arguable that the film's making the mother of the new humanity a immigrant/refugee girl pregnant in a cow barn offers a more compelling Christian-esque alternative than the mother in the book. In any case, the film is really quite good - I'm thinking the book and film are related but different, but both excellent stories in their own ways.
Interesting takes. I have to admit I never saw the parallels with Y Tu Mama Tambien before…!
Rawls wrote "Political Liberalism" to respond to the critique that his "Theory of Justice" was in fact a different manifestation: "metaphysical liberalism." The book fails to make the case: He excludes all reasons based in religion from public discourse, thereby giving liberalism the role of a religion, by default and de facto.
But the distinction is extremely important, even if it proves impossible to sustain in the long run. Many of us still see the Bill of Rights as articles of peace, rather than articles of faith. For 250 years they have given us a remarkably stable way of doing life together, fairly peaceably, despite really important differences. (And that one major historical exception proved to confirm the rule and to expand it. Contrary to sniffy objections, the SOLDIERS were primarily fighting for or against SLAVERY, not mere economic advantage.)
To the extent that it is a culture, 250 unbroken years seems pretty adaptive, relatively.
But that's the question: Is it a culture?
Or has it shaped and misshaped its host culture? I think it has.
Liberalism is parasitic on the very institutions necessary for its maintenance. It erodes the family, the church, the bowling league, the community, the local school.... And it does this not so much ideologically, though it does erode them that way also. Mostly though, it makes us less practically dependent on one another, every day, in thousands of ways. Through the forces of the free market, mass communication, urbanization, and especially, technology, I just don't need you. Or at least, I can survive pretty well MATERIALLY without you. Because technology. (And free markets, etc.)
I agree completely that the church is the answer. (For Christians. Non-Christians may look to respective, contrary conceptions of the good life for similar conclusions; I hope that Christians can support their efforts as co-belligerents in this kulturkampf.) Practically, that looks like laborious decision-making that leans against the eroding forces of liberalism. It means living as resident aliens in Babylon, seeking the welfare of the city, even as the city resists what it so desperately needs.
And it means that even as we-the-very-online use all these means, we demonstrate concretely and in our daily existence that we can live very well without them.
Thanks — seeking the welfare of the city around us is key. I see Christian culture as offering healthy competition to the imperial anti-culture, but not in a zero-sum existential way.
I think the main problem with convincing people to reverse back into a 2,000 year-old cultural tradition, no matter how desirable or even necessary its tenets might be, is that it's had had its day and the result was the opposite of what it ostensibly proclaimed, namely centuries of internecine warfare and bloodshed. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, many succumb to a literalist interpretation of ancient texts, regarded as divinely inspired, which are then used to support whatever proclivities that particular social group favours, to the exclusion of all others. These 'others' are then regarded as 'unregenerate', 'unsaved', 'unbelievers', 'infidels' or whatever, and in extremis their annihilation can be easily justified. This is happening now in Gaza, where fundamentalism on both sides has surely contributed to the current impasse. I don't have an answer or even an alternative, but I think looking backwards can often result in losing sight of where you're going.
Your whole premise is on very shaky ground. The very large increases in suicide and reduction in lifespan and sexual activity are precipitously shown occurring with the rise of social media. Liberalism isn't the problem and we really don't have a capitalist society. It's corrupt crony capitalism and completely rigged by oligarchy. Meanwhile Christian evangelicals will come out in droves to vote for a serial rapist for president so you're losing me here! Vladimir Putin is trying to sell the same crap over there as is Victor orban. I don't want to live in either of those societies. Most of my religious friends understand that the separation of church and state is a bedrock of our democracy
Where do I argue for losing the distinction between church and state? Where do I even talk about church-state relationships in this post? Yes, social media plays an important role in the negative indicators I've pointing to, but atomization was well advanced long before the internet, as Robert Putnam was already warning about in the 1990s with Bowling Alone. Any social system, no matter how beneficial, has inherent problems. A system dedicated to maximizing individual autonomy will inevitably end up creating loneliness and anomie. Durkheim was pointing this out 130 years ago. That doesn't mean other social systems don't have their own problems.