On (Not) Having a Side, or Embracing My Inner Ent

"'And what about yourself?' asked Merry. 
"'Hoom, hm, I have not troubled about the Great Wars,' said Treebeard; 'they mostly concern Elves and Men. That is the business of Wizards: Wizards are always troubled about the future. I do not like worrying about the future. I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side, if you understand me: nobody cares for the woods as I care for them, not even Elves nowadays...'" --J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, book 3, chapter IV
How shall I say this without taking sides? One of the things that I have noticed in the arguments that I have managed to get into of late with my friends on Facebook is a tendency on the part of some of those who disagree with me to want to lump me into certain categories, typically phrased as "your side." As the friend-who-is-no-longer-a-friend put it in our pre-Christmas Messenger exchange: "What your side really misses about all this...." (my emphasis). Throughout our conversation, my-friend-who-is-no-longer-a-friend attributed my interest in the topic at hand to my need to satisfy my "new group of friends" regardless (in his view) of the damage that their views might inflict on someone whom I ought to see as a colleague but was (again, in his view) willing to damn for being "suspiciously liberal" (again, his words, not mine). When at one point I protested that I was not in fact taking sides for or against a particular theological position (although, as I explained, I do have one), but rather only defending the right of those involved in the discussion at Wheaton to defend theirs, he told me: "If you don't have a dog in the fight [my phrase originally], then stay out of the fight." "How dare you," he seemed to be saying, "take sides without taking sides."

"Your side," "your conservative allies," "your new group of friends"--that is, my friend-who-is-no-longer-a-friend would seem to need to insist, "not mine." He is not the only one who has phrased his disagreement with me in these terms, although he is the only one, thus far, to threaten to unfriend me over my shares. (In the event, I unfriended him.) Because, it seems, he could not bear the thought of staying friends with me if I were not on his side.

Now, to be fair, I did post a Facebook status sometime this summer in which, as it were, I came out of the closet, and acknowledged that I have become aware of holding views about many of the issues that now so occupy our national social media that many of my friends would feel uncomfortable with. Not to be too evangelical about it, I called myself a heretic, as much to acknowledge the feeling of discomfort that disagreeing with so many of my friends has given me, as to point out the irony of feeling such discomfort in a social context (predominantly, academia) that has traditionally valorized the heretical, the edgy, the dissenting voice. I am guessing that it was this status post that made my friend-who-is-no-longer-a-friend think that the views I hold now are somehow new, when at the time what I tried to make clear was how the reading I have been doing these past three years has simply helped me clarify the discomfort I had always felt about certain arguments that my academic colleagues have tended to make. I made no mention of any other friends who share these views with me, and I made no effort to identify myself with anybody's side. I did make an effort to distinguish between liberals and conservatives and suggested that I tend to see things in what I now understand as a more conservative light (my argument had to do with seeing the glass half-full--the conservative viewpoint, because things could so easily be worse--or half-empty, that is, less than perfect, which I took to be the liberal viewpoint), although I also acknowledged that I can easily fall into despair, which makes me a somewhat gloomy Happy Warrior (a.k.a. Eeyore).* But I did not (at least I did not mean to) suggest that I was somehow taking sides against the vast majority of my friends who think of themselves as liberal. All I meant to do was explain myself.

Yes, I disagree with many of the things that I see my Facebook friends share on their walls, but I also understand (or at least, I try to) why they hold the views that they do, and I honestly and sincerely do not blame them for it. They are all good people--they are my friends, after all!--and I know that the ones who post such shares care deeply about our country and the kinds of things that they see happening in our world. Nor do I think of them as a homogenous group ("your side"). In part because I sometimes agree with them, in part because, even if I disagree with them, I admire their willingness to engage with questions that none of us finds particularly easy to talk about, never mind talk about calmly when we encounter those who do not share our understanding of the issues involved. But most of all because I have never in my life felt that anybody (as Treebeard puts it) was altogether on my side, except maybe my dog (and she can be quite stubborn when she wants to stop and sniff on our way to campus in the mornings).** It is true, I have made a number of new and now quite dear friends in the course of my reading over the past several years, while discovering (much to my delight) that not a few of my oldest friends from high school and college share more of my views than I had expected they would. But (pace my friend-who-is-no-longer-a-friend), I did not change my mind about what I believe simply in order to impress these friends, new or old. Quite the reverse! After all, if my goal had been to impress anybody, I would do much better (numerically speaking) trying to impress the friends whose views I already knew I disagreed with, at least to judge from the jokes that they tell. (Maybe more of them are in the closet than I realize or than they have been willing to confess. Who knows?)

So why is it that my Facebook friend-who-is-no-longer-a-friend needed to see me as somehow having a side? To answer would be, I am afraid, to take sides, and my inner Ent is as stubborn as my actual Corgi at letting me go there.

*From my status post: "Most of the time, I see the glass as half full: there is so much good in our society, our culture, our civilization that did not exist even in the period that I study, never mind the blink of an eye that is recorded history, how could one not rejoice at the blessings? but when friends persist in insisting that it is half empty, I start to despair. I don't understand how they can get up in the morning when all it seems they see is the evil in the world and especially in our own culture, which when I am feeling hopeful seems to me the best hope for the world. I went to bed last night after spending the day trying to defend the half-full glass ready to die, filled with despair about how we are going to lose everything good in our culture because we no longer see it or feel it even worth defending, so angry are we that it is not perfect, the glass 'only' half full. I held off posting until I woke up to give myself the chance to recover, but as I am writing this now, all I want to do is smash the glass and give up as my friends seem to me to suggest that I should: if the glass can't be full, life not perfect, then we shouldn't have the glass at all. I don't like this feeling and think it is probably a temptation to despair, but it is hard to resist feeling it, much easier to want to give in."
**No, not even God. I acknowledge that this may be a problem of perception, but I am describing here what I have felt about having a side.***
***Having written which, I also realize is going to need significantly more unpacking. Who says the examined life is preferable to the unexamined any way?

Popular posts from this blog

Draco Layer Four: The Anagogic or Mystical Sense

Image
Here be dragons. And doves. Human beings long for transcendence. Such longing is, for the world, always out of fashion because, of course, it is not a longing for the world, and the world knows it. We know what the world wants. The world—by which we mean Satan, the Lord of the World—wants above all our obedience, a jewel so precious that he will do anything to get it: lie, steal, murder, bear false witness, pretend to social standing, pretend to insider knowledge to get us to consent to his influence.  “God lied to you. You will not die.” And suddenly we are anxious about having other people dislike us, about losing prestige in our social circles, about other people being more popular or influential or successful, about other people having secret knowledge, about our own influence and fame. “You shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” And with that temptation, our first parents fell. The irony is cosmic. There they were in the Garden, privy to conversation with God face-to-face, ...
Keep reading

How to Signal You Are Not a White Supremacist

Image
Professor Kim READ FIRST:  Why Dorothy Kim Hates Me , The Color of the House of the Lord It’s back to class for those of us who teach in medieval studies, and my medievalist colleague Dorothy Kim , Assistant Professor of English at Vassar College ( pictured in 2014 ), wants to make sure you understand the stakes . The medieval western European Christian past is being weaponized by white supremacist/white nationalist/KKK/nazi extremist groups who also frequently happen to be college students.  That does sound bad. But, wait, it gets worse! Don’t think western European medieval studies is exceptional.... ISIS/ISIL also weaponizes the idea of the pure medieval Islamic past in their recruiting rhetoric for young male Muslims. If the medieval past (globally) is being weaponized for the aims of extreme, violent supremacist groups, what are you doing, medievalists, in your classrooms? Because you are the authorities teaching medieval subjects in the classroom, you are, in ...
Keep reading

Talking Points: Three Cheers for White Men

Image
1. When white women (see Marie de France and Eleanor of Aquitaine) invented chivalry and courtly love , white men agreed that it was better for knights to spend their time protecting women rather than raping them, and even agreed to write songs for them rather than expecting them to want to have sex with them without being forced. 2. When white men who were celibate (see the canon lawyers and theologians of the twelfth century and thereafter) argued that marriage was a sacrament valid only if both the man and the woman consented , white men exerted themselves to become good husbands rather than expecting women to live as their slaves. 3. When white women (see Christine de Pizan, Mary Wollstonecraft, and the suffragettes) invented feminism , white men supported them (see John Stuart Mill) and even went so far as to vote (because only men could vote at the time) to let them vote, not to mention hiring them as workers and supporting their education. And before you start telling me a...
Keep reading

What's in a name?

I knew it was a mistake involving myself in political commentary*, but having taken the plunge, I guess I have to keep swimming, at least until the election. One of the things that has mystified me for years is how the label "liberal" came to be associated with support for government regulation of business, e.g. environmental and worker protection measures, or even (heaven forbid) financial transactions. I know that my colleagues in political science would have an answer to this, and I suspect it goes back to sometime in the 1980s, when Berke Breathed did all those comics about the General [my bad: the Major; it's been a long time] and Milo hunting liberals in the meadows of Bloom County. But knowing the little that I do about the history of the concept of liberalism as it developed in the 19th century, I must confess myself rather confused. This is the way John Stuart Mill (as Wikipedia puts it, "one of the first champions of modern 'liberalism'") s...
Keep reading

Make the Middle Ages Dark Again

Image
I miss the good old days. You remember. Back when the only thing people knew about the Middle Ages is that they were Dark and filled with evil barons wresting a living off the back of their serfs, not to mention lecherous clergy imprisoning young maidens so as to rape them and then accuse them of witchcraft. You remember, right? What it was like when the Middle Ages were Dark? The Roman Catholic Church made slaves of everyone, stripped them of their sense of dignity and independence and made social status a matter not of achievement, but birth. The Church hated science and industry and did everything in its power to keep people in chains. It guarded its authority with the sword and the stake, stifled all innovation, and fed the common people lies. And why were these Ages so Dark? There were no universities, no towns, only castles with dungeons. Monks huddled in their cells thinking dark thoughts about sin, while Vikings stormed across the countryside, raping and pillaging and ca...
Keep reading