Wednesday, March 10, 2004
(9:41 AM) | Adam Kotsko:
A Brief Lenten Reflection (UWC)
Before you read this, you might want to check out Robb's CD-change day post -- in private conversation, he's implied that this might become a weekly feature.
I didn't give anything up for Lent this year. I am normally a very pious Catholic, so I feel somewhat remiss about it. Still, when I was thinking of possible things to do, nothing seemed to fit. I thought about learning German for Lent, which would require a real sacrifice of time and would simultaneously allow me better to follow what I believe to be my "calling," an academic life. I would have been fine with that in general if I hadn't already skipped about [as many days as there have been of Lent so far, minus two] days. My other plan was to try to wake up earlier, but that didn't seem sustainable. As for giving up sweets or something -- what, am I a ten-year-old?
I wondered what the point of these ascetic practices are, how they fit into the Christian life. Once the political element was evacuated out of the gospel, suffering became an end in itself, the best (only?) way to imitate Christ. Jesus himself does not seem terribly concerned about suffering, however -- he provides people with food, cures them of diseases and insanity, makes wine for them. He does advocate a voluntary poverty, but that seems to be directed toward more freedom -- not just abstract "freedom from possessions," but actual freedom to go out and do stuff. His death was the result of political agitation against a religious establishment that robbed people blind, and he was executed as a political rebel. We've made all that completely abstract now. It's all part of a transaction between God and himself, up in heaven.
Asceticism does make sense if it's goal-oriented. For instance, perhaps the Church could promote Lenten observances that are based on giving money to the poor, or working face-to-face with people in need. Perhaps they could say that people who consistently fail to help others and get down-and-dirty with the lowest in society are objectively unsuited to the priesthood. Of course, there's always the danger that "serving the poor and lowly" could become an end in itself, such that we need to make sure there are always poor people to serve. A just social order should be the goal, and we shouldn't just assume that bringing everyone up to middle-class standards of living equals a just social order. So maybe some people could "study economics" for Lent, or develop public policy proposals, or chain themselves to a military aircraft, or something.
à Gauche's last couple of posts address this topic from a more Badiouian perspective -- I did just purchase Badiou's Ethics, so maybe I will soon become a militant. As for standing and waiting, I don't know. Is there a difference between an academic and a teacher? Is there a point at which intellectual rigor becomes counter-productive? Is there such a thing as a vanguard? Zizek has few kind words for radical leftist intellectuals who only want revolution if they can keep their academic privileges. I would say that I'm trying to serve "the cause" by being the best student I can be, but I'm not sure that that last part is even true. Do they also serve who only sit and blog?
