In The Art of War, Sun Tzu writes:
Not knowing the other and not knowing oneself,
in every battle certain defeat.
Many of us on the Left have not worked hard enough at this knowing.
In an effort to better understand the contemporary Right, I’m going to turn to the world’s oldest story, the Epic of Gilgamesh. The earliest Gilgamesh texts date to 21st Century BCE. But, in the 21st Century CE, there’s more immediately relevant and useful knowledge there than in another analysis of Karl Rove.
Gilgamesh is the story of an all-too-human king who overcomes existential dread, bitterness and desire for revenge, dispositions or leanings that drive the conservative movement today. We need to understand those dispositions.
We’re talking temperament here, not essence. We miss their complexity when we label conservatives as, say, "authoritarian personalities." Call it the Error of Unbecoming Determinism. Needless to say, it’s an error people in a progressive movement shouldn’t make. At the very least, it’s unbecoming to deny to others what we hope for ourselves, and don’t we hope to be better tomorrow? With regard to the philosophical sense of "becoming" or "being," the double entendre is intended, too.
Still, it is important that we try to know what can be known. Roles can be described. And, there are such things as dispositions and temperaments. For instance, some people at one time in their lives might find strength, hope and creative power in the existential uncertainties of life. John Keats called this "negative capability." Others are often made angry and anxious by death, inexorable time and an uncertain universe.
It’s the latter existential orientation that helps connect the evangelical Christian Right to extremist, free-market apologists. It’s a powerful political alliance. Political scientist William E. Connolly, who has identified these connections, calls it "the evangelical-capitalist resonance machine."
Within the evangelical-capitalist alliance Connolly sees certain "affinities of spirituality." By "spirituality" he means dispositions to judgments or actions – not essences – connected loosely to beliefs. A shared ethos, or spiritual affinity, can reach across diverse groups. An atheistic, free-marketeer can find common ground with an evangelical prophet of the Apocalypse.
Connolly calls this "the ethos of existential revenge." Confronted by their certain mortality and an unchangeable past, evangelicals turn to a vengeful God who will punish their enemies and reward believers in a predestined, apocalyptic future. In his dreams, the capitalist hears, "’Vengeance is mine,’ sayeth the Market." Both groups, then, belong to exclusive minorities entitled to the earthly paradise they would use government to guarantee themselves.
It is this shared ethos of revenge and entitlement that led Albert Jay Nock, an intellectual founder of the modern conservative movement, to refer to the few blessed economic conservatives who would save the ignorant masses from themselves as "the Remnant." In his essay, "Isaiah"s Job" (reprinted by William F. Buckley in his 1970 American Conservative Thought in the Twentieth Century), Nock writes:
There is a Remnant…They need to be encouraged and braced up because when everything has gone completely to the dogs, they are the ones who will come back and build up a new society.
It sounds a lot like the description of the "Tribulation Force" in the bestselling Left Behind series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins. Speaking of the series’ heroes, the omniscient narrator says:
With their new pastor they formed what they call the Tribulation Force, a core group determined to challenge the forces of evil during the Tribulation period predicted in the Bible.
In our effort to understand such thinking, we might find a "spiritual affinity" between Connolly and George Lakoff, two thinkers who have looked for themselves. Lakoff speaks of the conservative ethos of authority, discipline and obedience and the progressive ethos of responsibility, empathy and nurturance. It’s his strict versus nurturant parent dichotomy.
What’s interesting is that both Lakoff and Connolly see these dispositions as arising from existential confrontations with meaning and our place in the universe. They are both humanists and pluralists, and they each make it clear their categories are fluid, the borders permeable.
Gilgamesh is a story of existential confrontation. Gilgamesh (the name may mean "The Old Man is a Young Man") is a powerful king who’s become a selfish tyrant. He leaves the city of Uruk seeking to transcend death and time. He fails, but his journey transforms him. He returns to the city as a more compassionate and responsible ruler. The "gate of sorrow" is closed behind him.
Here’s a 5,000-year-old story that resonates with contemporary, cutting-edge brain science and political thinking. This story, other Gilgamesh poems and legends, and recent anthropological and archeological discovers point to the emergence of egalitarian and democratic practices long before the Greeks "invented" democracy. You can read my exploration of these early human practices in "The Promise of Popular Democracy," Part I, Part II, Part III.
Now, what are the practical lessons I promised? I am, after all, a Democratic political practitioner, and it’s the practical potential that, in the end, interests me.
For starters, political progressives should respect the potential for human change or transformation they believe in. Some of today’s opponents can be won over if their deep moral and existential concerns are addressed. We need to articulate our values. Facts alone will not suffice. We can’t eliminate religion or spiritual orientation from politics, and progressives should not be reluctant to mention the spiritual sources of their values in public debate.
Connolly suggests a much stronger political intervention from those who believe in a compassionate God.
Second, we have to remember that everyone doesn’t think like we do. What seems like a self-evident truth to some is a bald-faced, manipulative lie to others. Furthermore, the extreme Right believes a "noble lie" is moral. In their hearts, the "Remnant" and the "Tribulation Force" believe they serve divine purposes. Their followers don’t hear us when we point out the lies. We have to win them over to new truths, not simple accusations of deceit.
Also, there is no silver bullet sound bite. Progressives need a broad and deep "resonance machine" of their own. We have to reach people where they live, where they work, where they play, where the pray. Too many of our political methodologies, from polling to persuasive advertising, are based upon misunderstandings of what humans are, how they think, and how their political opinions evolve. We have to address these errors. Until we know our opponents – and our selves – we can’t achieve the truly pluralistic democracy we seek.



38 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Birds that wish for hands and all the guns that they can carry ‘flock’ together.
Great post, thanks.
Glenn, thank you for bringing us the Gilgamesh Epic, I always thought it was just about the flood — shows how much I know. And then you make it even more relevant to us today. You are my Sunday Sermon.
Gilgamesh was also grief-stricken due to the death of his friend Enkidu, and seeking immortality. The death of his friend was cause for reflection and self-critique…and I don’t see that dynamic in the conservative party today. Self-criticism doesn’t seem to be their schtick..The fall of a conservative is never due to his faults or hubris, but always the treachery of liberals. Who is willing to be the Enkidu to the conservatives’ Gilgamesh?
What about Babylon 5? Conservatives are the Shadows. We get a fleet of diverse civilizations and taken’em on.
If an epic poem of transformation could be set down 5,000 years ago, we oughta be able to believe in transformation today. That’s one of the things about the epic that intrigues me — it is ancient, but so modern.
Oh crap, now I have to read William E. Connolly? I don’t even time to finish the Bacevich!
Certainly dehumanization and perpetual violence can be lain at the feet of capitalist and religious nuts, but I wonder what are the base core connections between the modern day Wall St yuppie/vampire and the talking-in-tongues apocalypsonian preacher? Even if they both presume themselves to be intellectuals, it would seem to me that their ‘resonance’ is more of an alliance to kill us (op cit gun buying and currency trading) than to create a City of God, or some such SciFi Fox TV reality show….
Enkidu’s death always symbolized to me the death of the pre-mercantile world (like Beowulf and Grendel and the death of norse pagan religion)…although I could have misread Gilgamesh, it has been a long time. As such, Gilgameshs return is more akin to John Lydons “This is not a love song” than to transformative values.
Still, anything to link these two nightmarish psychic realities, the God of money and the God of fear and violence, is fine with me. I would hope our resonance machine is based on logic, sound arguments, and provable conclusions, even if logic…is not enough. Fight The Power!
There is a similarity in that they aspired to and made their happiness contingent on unattainable goals. Immortality in the case of Gilgamesh, constancy in an ever-changing world for conservatives.
Gilgamesh eventually gave up his fool’s quest, I have less confidence in conservatives.
Glenn, thanks for a great post. It seems to me that the extreme right is driven by fear. Fear of change, fear of not being in control, and the very real fear that they actually aren’t correct in their beliefs. They can’t even discuss beliefs without getting defensive. Can we change their thinking? I very much doubt it can happen on any large scale.
Yes. Certainly not all, but some. Beliefs, dispositions, temperaments — they all come in degrees and shadings. This is different than talking about “moderate swing voters” or some such, though. As Lakoff points out, frames in the brain can’t be erased. But new frames can be created.
Appreciate it.
Glenn, I love to sit down on Sunday mornings with your posts, so much to think about. Can’t stay today, but will look forward to reading the thread later on.
Namaste.
Sorry you can’t stay today, but please come back. Meanwhile, read some of the links in the post when you do have a moment. And thanks so much for the compliment!
Respectfully, that is an oversimplification of Gilgamesh.
Lately, I have had the opportunity to discuss health care reform with several conservative health care workers. When I talk about universal health care they always respond with “It doesn’t work. Look at Canada. Do you want to have to wait for your care. etc.” My response is “Why can’t we come up with a better plan that works. It is not a universal law that government doesn’t work. Aren’t you and I smarter than that? Isn’t America smarter than that? And maybe there is more than one solution to the problem.” I try to say it in a tone that is not filled with snarky attitude. I can feel the tension desolve. And recently, I have actually walked away from discussions that were not going to be of any value to either of us. It has been a real eye opener.
Of course it is. I am looking at only one part of its meaning and its connection to the matters at hand. You can’t reduce such a work of art to the simple points I’m making, and I hope no one believes I think this is all Gilgamesh is about.
Keep up the conversation. There’s more to gain than you might think from your advocacy with folks you may encounter. It’s the media age, sure, but our voices are the most powerful venues of all.
masaccio is upstairs!
South Korea Court Shows Cowardly US Officials How to Manage Banksters
The spiritual analog is the belief that we are all god. Not just the belief, but the reality of that. To be able to look at any other human being, and experience – know – their divine nature.
I know for me that that is a challenge I will spend the rest of my life trying to meet. Creating new frames, neural pathways in myself.
A clue as to how to do this is Gandhi’s “Be the change you want to see in the world.” And to come full circle, believe that anyone, even Conservatives, can transform.
Wonderful! No surprise the tension dissolves.
Glenn, Damn, now I have to spend the afternoon thinking. I was going to spend it watching 40 cars turning left.
AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Glenn W Smith and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
Thank you Brother Smith for another refreshing drink from your clear stream of intelligence…this old broken down son of an English teacher is so grateful to be able to read essay writing like yours, this kind of intellectual story telling is vanishing and what is left is usually inaccessable to common folks out here in the heartland of democracy and anus of progress.
The “resonance machine” that used to bring ideas of truth together with people’s experience used to have two main speakers for broadcasting: the Protestant pulpit and the poet’s written forays into the battleground of truth. Modern capitalism has corrupted both and is now working on reducing the common citizen’s ability to receive these ideas…tell me how many folks have the time to read or the education given ability to recongnize honest writing that can help make sense of their experience.
No Citizen Smith, I’m afraid that the corruption of religion and capitalism has disarticulated Americans from our own humanity and anethsetized our senses to the extent that we have no ability to conceive of an alternative to the pain of living and must reassure ourselves of surcease of sorrow in some promise of afterlife.
The ability to live and learn from the pain of living is being taken from us even as we sit here watching…there may not be any redemption for us older folks who have fucked this world up but we still have our kids if we can only keep ‘em alive long enough for them to make a difference for themselves.
Thank you again, Brother Smith, your writing is a Godsend on a Sunday mornin’…(that’s a little Norwegian irony there Brother!)
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, THE STRUGGLE IS FOR THE CHILDREN!!
Your advice sounds like “turn the other cheek”: accept abuse in an attempt to show your humanity and elicit that of your opponent as a prelude to finding common ground. That was both peaceful and optimistic. It fought against the human reaction to defend and seek retribution. (An example from the opposite behavioral pole would be George Bush.) It conformed to the needs of a Middle Eastern village society where locals were constantly under the yoke of one occupier or another: Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek or Roman. But there are practical differences to bear in mind. The yoke of Babylon was rather more sweet than Rome.
Ghandi’s version of civil disobedience seems more artful, more attuned to the exhaustion of empires and the power of the press once to convince millions that injustice could be righted, even at a cost to self, if enough like-minded people spoke their peace. It didn’t prevent bloodshed; it changed the hands who wielded the ax. But it broke up social wars of attrition and made room for maneuver.
I agree wholeheartedly with your observation that progressives need to address the relational and the emotive, not just the rational. That may be their biggest disconnect with authoritarian personalities.
“How” is also the question. Progressives, not just Soviet Russia, have been the Right’s “evil empire” for decades. When George Bush decreed he would not talk to his enemies, he meant progressives as well as Iran and North Korea. Liberals’ reminder that the explicit purpose of state diplomacy was to engage the enemy in non-lethal combat fell on deaf ears.
There is hope. Newt Gingrich knew that and fought it. One of his first acts on gaining power in Congress was to decree that Republicans could not socially interact with Democrats – at school or play, as husbands, wives, parents or children – lest they fall from the “true faith”.
He infantalized his junior (now senior) Republicans, keeping them in de facto dormitories in DC or constantly traveling home so that they could not get to know their counterparts across the aisle. He knew that familiarity bred recognition, empathy and compromise as often as contempt. That did not suit his quest for power.
I think Shao-lin monks are a pragmatic example of how to interact more genuinely with those who process the world so differently than progressives. They invented a marvelous way to defend themselves as well as to pray. They used it sparingly, only as and as much as was necessary. But it was always available. Peaceful intentions appeal to many, but not to predators; it takes away their avenue to power.
In one of those odd coincidences, I was thinking about the story of Gilgamesh last week. I read it in the summer of ‘70 at UNC, while serving out my stay in the Army. I also reread Camus’ The Myth of Sisyphus and The Rebel that summer, and became relatively fixed on the contingency of meaning in the universe. I did not draw this connection, but it resonates.
A large number of people want explanations for the misery, and the good, in life. We can do a lot of good by just listening to that honestly and openly.
Perhaps the ultimate “art of war” will turn out to be the discovery and universal application of the principle that Force is never necessary (nor ultimately effective) when actions are taken in alignment with Power.
In my understanding, “having” Power is being grounded in the universal — in terms of Glenn’s essay, the things that he calls the existential uncertainties of life; death, inexorable time and an uncertain universe. To address these is to address another person at the core.
Thanks for this post; it talks about the archetypes we are dealing with and for some reason struggle to talk about coherently and effectively.
But even your use of an ancient epic is an example of our inability to talk about archetypes at a meta level. We relate to them at gut level, but still struggle with engaging the next layer or two above in our processing; without engaging the next levels of thought consciously, we will struggle with labeling the archetypes we face and then building the appropriate counter-archetypes.
We’re beginning to make headway against the vengeful earth mother that is Palin, but it’s taken us far too long to mount a response and it’s still pretty spotty, and we’ve also had to rely on her own failures, too. What would have happened had Palin been more effective and focused? I shudder to think.
I think the most important thing is to develop as a person. That is, I can’t point at someone else and say they’re insufficiently developed, because that would mean I’m insufficiently developed.
Part of what’s so hard about all this is that self-development, self-reflection, and spiritual development are not only the end of political division, they are also the end of *politics.* Everyone wants everything; those on the right want their precious stem cells and those on the left want their precious universal health care or whatever. From a certain perspective, those things become ridiculous; they take on a certain silly obviousness. This quality of experience is the end of politics. It’s not that you cease to care, it’s that you cease to want to savage your neighbor in order to get it.
And really, politics, as practiced on ‘blogs especially, is not simply about getting what you want. It’s about savaging your neighbor in order to get what you want.
The only way to go back to a position of humanity, rather than the savaging, is to invite. And the only way to invite is to leave the dichotomy of left/right or whatever spectrum you prefer. You have to live outside that spectrum in order to truly invite someone to step out of it and join you.
Gilgamesh teaches some of this. Sun Tzu gives a little, as well. Maybe Morihei Ueshiba has something to teach us, too: “The real Art of Peace is not to sacrifice a single one of your warriors to defeat an enemy. Vanquish your foes by always keeping yourself in a safe and unassailable position; then no one will suffer any losses. The Way of a Warrior, the Art of Politics, is to stop trouble before it starts. It consists in defeating your adversaries spiritually by making them realize the folly of their actions. The Way of a Warrior is to establish harmony.”
No, I don’t not mean to recommend the passive turning of other cheeks. I think that aphorism if often misunderstood, anyway. If we are vanquish a fear-based behavior, for instance, we’re going to have to understand it first. I’m certainly not saying accept abuse. That’s a profound misunderstanding of empathy. Neuroscience is now showing us that there’s a neurobiological basis for empathy, but there’s also an override. We don’t have to empathize with abusers. Just understand them.
That is a TRUE spiritual statement.The only time I make headway with conservative/religiously intolerant people is when I speak the language of the heart to them.
I understand that people who react violently, whether emotionally or verbally ( I don’t come without a mile of those who act it out physically if I can help it; they are a lost cause to me)are acting out of fear.
Now whether I stay to deal with them or not depends largely on if they are willing to be honest with me, at least in their feeling. If they get too abusive and won’t meet me halfway, I wish them well in my heart and turn and walk away.
One CAN love from afar, I’ve found. And sometimes it is better to lie back in the tall grass with folks who are too frightened to have dialogue with, even if they are relatives; maybe especially then.
Funny, I was just thinking of Gilgamesh this morning. I am not amused that he killed Tiamat/Maat (the Great Goddess), not at all. But that’s another story for another time.
Mr Smith. This essay is an incredible example of poor writing. Either obtain an editor to prune down your prose or stop writing.
Unnecessary commentary. Simply edit your reading by using the back button if you don’t like a post.
Loved this, for a number of reasons.
Part of my interest in the “Gilgamesh” is because it is the first written epic that we know of, written in what we call Iraq. The first cities obviously required some kind of administrative documentation, and writing evolved — but at first, only cuniform.
The odd bit is that if you look at any of the original writing, the earliest cuniform appears to attempt to ‘draw’ what it described, because it was essentially a pictographic system. There are a lot of ramifications of this — but my point here is that it appears that there is an extremely close relationship (a ‘common root’) between the origins of writing, and the origins of divination.
Writing was, in the era of the ‘Gilgamesh’, almost entirely the province of a priestly, scribal class. They were phenomenally perceptive in noting the motions of the planets, and it is quite possible that the constellation we in America know as ‘Osiris’ was called by the ancient Sumerians/Iraqi’s “Gilgamesh”.
If this is true, then it gets even more interesting because at some point he battles ‘Tiamat’, a serpent (which in some languages is called ‘a dragon’). This is most likely to be the constellation we call today ‘Draco’, quite near the pole star.
It’s also quite intriguing to consider that ‘Humbaba’, who is put up as ‘the baddie’ in the “Gilgamesh” may quite well represent ‘the spirit of the forest’. IF this is accurate, then it is quite possible that the Gilgamesh is an early record of environmental destruction: the period in which it was written was the earliest we know of metallurgical processes (in what is now southern Turkey). This meant that people had sharp metal axes to cut down trees to feed the forges. Deforestation would have resulted then – as it does today! — in widespread, dangerous flooding as the trees which had previously absorbed moisture and held the soils were depleted at an alarming rate. This, in turn, had serious implications for crop production, due to changing environmental conditions.
But in the era of the “Gilgamesh”, writing was viewed as a kind of magic — a kind of power that came from the gods. To actually write the name of a god was an act of great seriousness, and to NAME a thing was to understand its nature, or its essence.
To write appears to have been like a kind of psychological alchemy. The act of naming, in and of itself, was a kind of resonance; the act of writing was like the power of naming magnified many times.
Gilgamesh hardens his heart, and his refusal to listen to sound advice dooms his friend. This theme is repeated in the Iliad (when Achilles places himself outside the moral code of his clan by refusing to accept the apology of his King). In both the earlier Sumerian story of the Gilgamesh, and the later Greek version, to refuse to honor the moral boundaries of the group is to invite destruction.
There are reasons the “Gilgamesh” is still relevant today.
One of those is how well its logic captures the tragedy of unintended consequences — whether you simply see the tragic, unwitting role of Gilgamesh in his friend’s death, or whether you see the tragic irony in floods caused by (forge) fires, the ‘Gilgamesh’ captures the sorrow and grief of unintended consequences and the dearly bought price of bitter knowledge.
All the more reason to be compassionate; we mean well, we try hard, but even our best efforts so often fall far short.
As a final note, one more reason for my utter contempt of GWBush is the damage wrought, and the antiquities sold on black markets, by his bloody war. The treasures of Iraq, at least what I have seen in photographs, were absolutely exquisite. At least, by the grace of heaven, we still have copies of the “Gilgamesh”.
My reference to turning the other cheek was not about eliciting the abused’s empathy for the abuser, but the other way round. Responding non-violently to violence, is to do the unexpected. When it works, it temporarily disarms the abuser and may open dialogue.
Your point is that understanding the political opponent is required for dialogue. That seems self-evident. What does one do when the other side doesn’t want to understand, only hate?
I agree about doing the unexpected. The need for understanding an opponent may be self-evident, but it’s not the habit it should be. Too often I find myself making a political adversary two-dimensional and just running through the melodrama. I try not to and know better, but I do it. I might have done it in my response to you, and you’re not a political adversary! I didn’t listen correctly, and instead made a point about misunderstanding empathy, which really didn’t apply to your comment. See what I mean about a bad habit?
Although the origins of the written language are pictographic, by the time of the writing of Gilgamesh, even in its earliest state, that is, preceding the eleven tablet series of Ashurbanipal, the language had already developed into a phonetic as well as contextual model. Gilgamesh exists in several versions, I believe it would be a significant stretch to say it is 5,000 years old. The earliest fragments–which are not the version that is printed today–are presumed to be from around 2000 BCE. The version we read today–which forms a complete work–is even later. I simply do not agree that “Gilgamesh is the story of an all-too-human king who overcomes existential dread, bitterness and desire for revenge, dispositions or leanings that drive the conservative movement today.” That reduces the plotline to a sort of “text bite”. There are examples in western literature that hew fairly closely to that idea, but Gilgamesh is not one of them. Nor is Gilgamesh human, he is only one third human, and that is central to the story. Indeed, the story reads more like science fiction/science fantasy, and the striking symbols of deification, magical plants, demon-monsters, failure in the face of sure success, and many others, defy any straightforward interpretation–one of the unique and compelling features of the work. The character in some respects seems not to have learned anything from his adventures, but sort of winds up where he started neither sadder nor wiser, and the narrative is more ringlike than teleologic. Don’t take my word for–read the Andrew George edition and translation that compares all the versions.
Well, I should have added, “could be read as…” I am more interested in pointing out that a character invented by the human mind long ago, faced the same kind of existential anguish about time and death and, failing to overcome it, returns to the city. The story is not ringlike. Note that it’s Gilgamesh describing his city in the end, not a third person narrator. And, I think all great tales resist straightforward, simplified interpretations. It’s the resistance that makes them great, maybe…
Yes ;-))
And what’s interesting is to try and figure out how the systems of writing altered what could be expressed. Originally, the writing system was a bunch of nouns: ‘king’ + ‘city’ + ’snake’. How that process evolved into what we have access to in the form of a story written in an alphabet is fascinating and full of puzzles.
Like you, I’ve encountered at least one version where Gilgamesh doesn’t seem to learn a damn thing; he was mighty, he was powerful, he lost his friend, end of story.
The pathos seems to have entered into the story written in an alphabetic means of encoding.
I find it all endlessly fascinating.
But the bottom line is, I suppose, stories that can generate empathy are far more empowering, much better at helping people make wise decisions, than the kind of relentless, negative yammering in media like Fox Newz.
I never thought of Bill O’Reilly as a moving pictograph before, but in the sense of lacking empathy, being simplistic, and expressing a very limited emotional range, he fits that ‘bill’, so to speak.
Glenn @ 28
kuvasz @ 30
How do I find a way to understand this response? I was dumbfounded, until I saw what Eckhart Tolle calls a pain body behind the words. The comment is made here often, “don’t feed the trolls.” Tolle says we can feed the pain body (and it grows and thrives), or recognize it for what it is, and know there is a person in pain/trance behind it. Our choice then is to engage or not engage. To fight is to engage the pain body. To try to understand is to engage the person.