11/22: The Day "Truth" Died
Last week I wrote a column pointing out that evangelical Christians supported a lot of progressive, even radical, political views in nineteenth-century America. Slowly, some evangelicals are starting to return to their left-leaning roots. Get a random cross-section of evangelicals together and you might get quite a lively debate about the economy, the role of government, the environment, and a host of other issues.
But there's one thing they'd all agree on: Whatever
political position they hold, evangelicals will always begin explaining their
view with the words: "The Bible says." The stamp of biblical authority can be put on
any political position, from far left to far right, as U.S. history proves.
Whenever that stamp is pasted on, it gives any political
position a sacred aura of absolute certainty. That's the old-fashioned sense of
"truth": something that's eternal, universal, unarguable, unshakeable,
unchallengeable; "the God's honest truth."
I wrote that column about evangelicals just as the stream of
media words about the fiftieth anniversary of John F. Kennedy's death
was swelling higher and higher. The coincidence set me to thinking about how the
question of truth and certainty has played out in American political history.
This week we are deluged by reminiscences of JFK and Jackie
and, even more, the endless flow of theories about what really happened in
Dealey Plaza on that tragic day. Some are sure a single gunman named Oswald
killed the president. Some are sure that's a lie. Some aren't sure of anything.
And some, like me, think the most important fact about the assassination is
precisely that, after fifty years, the debate goes on with no end in sight.
Perhaps documents not yet released will
turn up some irrefutable "smoking gun" (at least metaphorically and
perhaps literally). For now, though, there's only one thing for sure: Half a
century on, we have no societal consensus about what really happened. As a
nation, all we have is a shared collective uncertainty.
Though no one knew it
at the time, the announcement of JFK's death also announced the beginning of
the end of the old-fashioned idea of "truth" -- an absolute certainty
that we can all depend on.
A profound sense of uncertainty set in as soon as we heard
the news on November 22, 1963. The thought was sometimes articulated and almost
universally felt: If the young, vigorous leader out of Camelot could be cut
down in the prime of his life, by a shot or shots out of the blue, and bleed to
death all over his beautiful young wife, then anything was possible. There was
no way to know what to expect next. Call it metaphysical uncertainty.
The generation yet unborn at the time can easily relate to
that feeling by recalling the morning of September 11, 2001, another day in
living memory that gave America an equal sense of shock and uncertainty, as if
the ground had been pulled out from under us.
But the deeper significance of JFK's killing appears by contrasting
it with the third such day in living memory (and there have only been three):
the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The result of that attack was an immediate end to
uncertainty. The debate about whether to intervene in World War II collapsed
within hours. There was a sweeping consensus on who was good, who was evil, and
what had to be done.
JFK's murder was a whole different story. Metaphysical
uncertainty opened the door to moral uncertainty: If there was no consensus on
who did it, how could we know for sure who was good and who was evil?
A few years later the same kind of question abounded on many
fronts, most notably the battle front. Growing numbers of Americans were coming
to the conclusion -- a terribly painful one, for many -- that we were not the
good guys in Vietnam. Many were seriously doubting that there were any good
guys. A war without good guys against bad guys? That just didn't compute in the
American mythological tradition. All that remained was bafflement.
Many Americans found similar uncertainty looking at the
question of race. Evangelical Christianity had been merged with politics most
recently in the civil rights movement in the South, which never could have
succeeded without the powerful force of the black churches behind it.
As the African-American struggle for equality became
centered less in the churches of the South and more in the streets and secular
meeting halls of the North and West, it no longer felt so comfortable to many of
the whites who had cheered the evangelical preaching of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Still, most of those whites understood that
African-Americans, and indeed all people of color, had justifiable reasons for
anger. On the other hand, justifiable reasons for violence? Again, moral
certainty was increasingly hard to come by.
The sense of confusion was fueled by a host of other issues.
Gender roles, sexual behavior, poverty, parental authority, education, drugs
and alcohol -- just about everything seemed to be an area of contention and
endless questions, where once seemingly settled rules had created a secure
sense of certainty.
To be sure, that yearning for the good old days of "truth"
and settled rules was largely a matter of nostalgia for a mythic past that
never quite existed, at least not the way so many people imagined it. But in
political arena mythic pasts are just as real as historically accurate pasts --
and often more powerful, as the voters would prove in 1980 when they
overwhelming elected Ronald Reagan to the presidency.
Reagan's popularity rested on his call for shrinking
government in the domestic sphere and expanding it in the military (especially nuclear)
sphere, but most of all on his uncanny ability to provide a reassuring sense of
certainty. In a manner more gentle than strident, he made his point clear: There
are immutable rules in human life, America stands for those rules, and he would
make sure they would never be successfully challenged or even called into
question.
(If anyone doubted it, they had only to recall that Reagan
first came to political prominence as governor of California, when he ordered a
massive police assault on the "dirty hippies" who wanted to seize the
University of California's land and turn it into a People's Park.)
Though Reagan was far from an evangelical Christian, he
appealed to that community by speaking well of them and, even more, by bringing
the stamp of authority, certainty, and "truth"
back into American political life. Plenty of Americans breathed a sigh of
relief. The thought that truth no longer meant certainty had been a frightening
one.
What Reagan, the evangelicals, and all who shared their
yearning for certainty didn't realize is that, all the time, another revolution
had been brewing, one born in Paris. Back in 1968, even the most conservative
Americans had been thankful that, as chaotic as our nation seemed, it was
nothing compared to the streets of Paris (and other French cities), where a
radical student-worker coalition manned and womanned the barricades to fight
pitched battles against the police.
But the real revolution -- the one that would transform life
around the world, including the USA -- was happening in the elite universities
of Paris, where Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and their avant garde
colleagues were teaching students a whole new way to understand what truth is.
Deconstructionism and post-structuralism abolished the very
possibility of certainty. What we call truth became nothing but a momentary
arrangement of words whose meanings were constantly slipping and sliding under
the pressure of other words, all produced by an ever-shifting array of
constellations of power.
Whenever someone declared they had found the truth, there
was always another way to look at it. And that other way would probably
prevail, sooner or later, because where you stood on any question of truth
depended largely on where you sat in the unstable field of power.
It was precisely during the Reagan presidency, while so many
Americans were enjoying their newly regained sense of certainty, that these
imports from Paris snuck into the universities and transformed American life. Academic
humanists, and some social scientists, were finally catching up with what
sophisticated physicists had known since Werner Heisenberg's famous
pronouncement in 1927: Even in the most rigorous scientific experiment, there
is always an element of uncertainty.
Now we have a whole generation of college-educated Americans
who were taught that the old notion of "truth" as certainty is an
outdated relic. Perhaps it's no coincidence that this generation is less likely
than their elders to identify with any particular religion.
But the more important -- I'd say momentous -- consequence
of the rise of uncertainty is in the political realm. There's a mass of experimental
evidence linking conservative political views to a desire for firm, dependable
structure and an aversion to (or even fear of) ambiguity and uncertainty. Those
who hold liberals views typically show just the opposite traits. (Take the
quiz here.)
Almost anything can become a symbol of uncertainty. Communism,
"terrorist" attacks, legal abortion, gay marriage, and the banning of
prayer from schools have all headed the list at one time or another. Now it's
"big government." Behind all those issues, and so many more
conservative bêtes noires, lies the fundamental disturbing question: Whatever
happened to our cherished notion of "truth"?
The answer, so painful to so many Americans -- not just to
conservatives, by any means -- is that the old idea of "truth" is
vanishing. It's an agonizingly slow process, moving forward in fits and starts.
It brings all sorts of pain to many Americans, as those who suffer
psychologically respond with political policies that inflict physical suffering
on others.
Yet the process is probably irreversible. The old
"truth" is gradually being replaced by the idea Gandhi articulated so
well: "Absolute truth ... is beyond reach. The truth we see is relative,
many-sided, plural. ... There is nothing wrong in every man following truth
according to his lights. Indeed it is
his duty to do so. ... In this world, we always have to act as judges for
ourselves."
Of course Gandhi recognized the question that immediately
springs to mind: If everyone is deciding what's true for themselves, how will
we ever get along with each other? How will we ever have any harmony in
society? And he was ready with an answer, the only answer I've ever come across
that makes sense: Nonviolence.
Compromise on matters that aren't crucial, the
Mahatma advised. When moral principle is at stake, stand up for truth as you
see it. Yet offer love and compassion to those who see it differently, even as
you firmly resist their actions and policies. Never seek to harm them. If harm
must come, let it be on you.
Maybe some day, at the end of this long, painful transition,
America will embrace Gandhi's view as its own. Maybe not. While we are waiting,
we should resist the dangerous policies promoted by people who are terrified at
the prospect of losing absolute "truth."
But we should also understand why they are terrified. We
should remember to give them our compassion, as Gandhi urged.
And we should remember that it all began on that November
day in 1963 when the president was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, or by Oswald
and someone (or someones) else, or someone(s) else and not Oswald at all, or …
well, 50 years later the only truth we're left with is that we are, as a
nation, still uncertain.