-
1. Modernism and Religion
- Indiana University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
ONE Modernism and Religion Right from his entrance on the philosophical scene in the late 1960s, Stanley Cavell has insisted that philosophy is confronted with the same cultural problems , burdens, and commitments—collectively known as modernism—that confront art. From some moment during the nineteenth century, artistic conventions for representation and composition no longer seemed to be adequate bearers of contemporary expression; along with the corrosion of the given framework of conventions, the stable relation between artist and audience also became more fragile, at times broken. As Cavell sees it, this situation is mirrored in philosophy : after Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Wittgenstein, there is no simple answer as to how one should establish and continue to write philosophy; its past conveys no reliable answer for how to proceed, its future relevance cannot be known, and its attraction of an audience has become a goal rather than a given. Hence, both art and philosophy must find new modes of continuing their respective tasks. The absence of traditional authorities in art and philosophy might be rooted in the corrosion of a shared recognition of God and a cosmic order. From this perspective, modernism can be regarded as a reaction to secularization: the metaphysical isolation of modern subjectivity, its loss in the conviction of another reality, and its various attempts to connect with the finite reality. But it is also viable to regard religion as entering a modernist situation, that is, not as outdated and hence impossible, but as possible although problematic. While Cavell at times expresses reluctance toward religion in general and aspects of Christianity in particular, this disinclination is but one side of his stance toward religion, the other being affirmative. Consequently, any reading of Cavell’s relation to religion that does not take both sides into account will invariably be one-sided. In this chapter I shed light on the motivation behind Cavell’s ambivalent stance toward religion by suggesting that the modernist situation, as Cavell conceives it, not only has bearing on art and philosophy, but also sheds considerable light on the conditions of religion. Between Christianity and Nietzsche In order to contest the reading of Cavell as presenting a one-sided account of Christianity, I address the passages on which that reading fundamentally relies. It is incontestably true that Cavell does attack Christianity, particularly some of Modernism and Religion 17 its conceptions of sin, its understanding of the human body, and its fundamental passivity coupled with the requirement for external intervention. In doing so, Cavell draws heavily on Nietzsche’s criticism of Christianity, for example when writing the following: Can a human being be free of human nature? (The doctrine of Original Sin can be taken as a reminder that, with one or rather with two exceptions humankind cannot be thus free. Yet Saint Paul asks us to put off our (old) nature. What is repellent in Christianity is the way it seems to imagine both our necessary bondage to human nature and our possible freedom from it. . . . ) (CR, 416) The repellent “way” presumably refers to the Pauline understanding of humanity as bound to sin, and to the depiction of redemption from sin through external grace, made possible through Christ. Though readings of the relevant passage are often restricted to these lines, it is crucial to my reading to cite the passage further:1 In this, Nietzsche seems to me right, even less crazy than Christianity . But he persists in believing both that humankind must get free of human nature and that the human being cannot be free of human nature. Hence the logic of his advice to escape this dilemma of our humanity by overcoming our human nature. I hope he was wrong in this persistence . . . that we will . . . overcome ourselves nihilistically , solve the dilemma of our humanity by becoming monsters . (CR, 416) Let me draw attention to two points: first, Cavell’s suggested parallelism of the Christian outlook and Nietzsche’s alternative, and second, the fact that Cavell hopes Nietzsche is wrong, that to opt for the superhuman (Übermensch) implies the quest for the inhumane by becoming monsters. Hence, Cavell does not confront us with two options, one obviously wrong and one obviously right. Even if the perspectives eclipse each other—the Nietzschean critique of Christian sin and redemption, versus the Christian objection to Nietzsche’s monstrosity— Cavell is not taking a stance here. He can speak of his conception of philosophy “as the achievement of the unpolemical, refusal to take sides in metaphysical positions ” (PoP, 22...