-
Introduction
- The University Press of Kentucky
- Chapter
- Additional Information
1 IntroduCtIon Eastwood as Philosopher Richard T. McClelland and Brian B. Clayton It is easy to forget that philosophy has not always been practiced as it commonly is today. Most philosophers working today (and over the last couple of centuries) have been academics, usually in universities. There they teach, do research, write for publication, gather to present at professional meetings, and the like. Professional journals and monograph series are often sponsored by university departments, and conferences of all kinds commonly convene on university campuses worldwide. Most philosophers these days possess advanced degrees from universities (though increasingly such degrees do not ensure employment in academic positions). Considered in terms of these traditions of professional formation and deployment, there is ample reason to doubt that Clint Eastwood could plausibly be taken to be a philosopher or to be doing the work of a philosopher in his filmmaking (as actor, director , producer, and/or musician). After all, he does not possess an advanced degree in philosophy (or any closely related discipline), he does not work in an academic institution, he does not present his own creative work in the usual venues that philosophers use. Nevertheless, it is our view that Eastwood is doing substantial philosophical work in and by means of his films. It is the purpose of this introduction to say what we mean by this claim. In doing so we also wish to direct our readers toward the specific essays that make up this volume and some of their distinctive themes. It may be, also, that our notion of practical philosophy (which is what we think Eastwood is doing) will have application elsewhere in the arts and sciences. One reason for thinking that Eastwood might be philosophizing in his creative work is almost purely negative. Philosophy has not always been practiced as it is today. Indeed, throughout most of its long history it was not. In the ancient world most philosophers (including the few women 2 The Philosophy of Clint Eastwood philosophers known to us) were persons of independent means, members of the wealthy social elites of their societies. Later on, when learning and education were dominated by religious institutions, especially in Europe, most philosophers were priests or monks (what the medieval world would have known as “clerks”), and some (such as Augustine) rose very high in the clerical orders of the medieval church. Later still, John Locke made his living as a professional civil servant working for the British Crown. Rousseau supported himself as a secretary and tutor to wealthy clients. Only in modern times have philosophers characteristically (indeed, almost exclusively) been found working as professors in universities (and related institutions).1 We have no wish to introduce a spurious “demarcation problem” for philosophy . But we point out that our present institutional dispositions are entirely contingent and leave room for other approaches. Our view is that Clint Eastwood , notably as a director but also as an actor and a musician, carries out in his creative work substantive philosophical inquiry. Indeed, it has been the work done on this volume which has primarily persuaded its editors of this view. However, his philosophical work has a distinctive character, one that is often in sharp contrast with what ordinarily passes for “philosophy.” Philosophy as Craftsmanship Eastwood is above all else a craftsman, an artisan, a maker of cultural artifacts .2 Many of his films fall into readily recognizable genres. Several of our authors point to ways in which Eastwood either moves from one genre to another or calls a genre into question and offers even a radical revision of the tradition that belongs with the genre. Thus, Deborah Knight and George McKnight, in their essay, argue that over the course of his career Eastwood has shifted primarily from the genre of romance to that of tragedy. Such a shift, in their view, was needed to explore more deeply the responses of individual characters to injustice and other forms of suffering, especially injustice committed against innocent persons. Several of our authors have found Eastwood’s Unforgiven (1992) an arresting critique and revision of the tradition of the Western. Erin Flynn argues that this revision draws out a view of the traditional Western that is implicit in the history of that genre. Richard Gilmore argues that revision of this genre/tradition was needed in order to construct narratives of redemption. Karen Hoffman looks widely at Eastwood’s attitudes toward violence and in particular violence by gun, as well as to the vision of masculinity that...