[lit-ideas] Trilling on Eliot, VI, the notion of human progress
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Lit-Ideas " <Lit-Ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 08:25:53 -0700
Trilling writes that the ". . . notion of progress [is] a belief shared by
the bourgeois and the Marxist, that the direction of the world is that of
never-ceasing improvement. So far as Marxism goes, this idea seems to have
a discrepancy with the Marxist dialectic, for it depends on a standard of
judgment . . . the judgment of direction, the certainty of what 'higher'
signifies and what 'better' signifies. One has only to hear a Marxist
defend (as many a Marxist will) the belief that through the ages even art
shows a definable progress and improvement to understand how untenable the
notion is in any of its usual statements. And the progress which is held to
be observable in art is held to be no less observable in human relations.
"And from the notion of progress has grown that contempt for the past and
that worship of the future which so characteristically marks the radical
thought of our time. The past is seen as a series of necessary failures
which perhaps have their value as, in the dialectical way, they contribute
to what comes after. The past has been a failure: the present - what can it
matter in the light of the perfecting future? And from - or with - a sense
of the past as failure, and of the present as nothing better than a willing
tributary to the future, comes the sense of the wrongness of the human
quality at any given moment. For while they have always violently
reprobated any such notion as Original Sin and by and large have held the
belief that, by nature, man is good, most radical philosophies have
contradicted themselves by implying that man, in his quality, in his kind,
will be wholly changed by socialism in fine ways that we cannot predict:
man will be good not as some men have been, but good in new and unspecified
fashions. At the bottom of at least popular Marxism there has always been a
kind of disgust with humanity as it is and a perfect faith in humanity as it
is to be."
COMMENT: What is being described here is a Marxist eschatology. The
Christian eschatology this most closely approximates is Postmillennialism.
They both hypothesize a future time when humans will be much closer to
perfection than they are today. Close enough so that human failings the
world is used to become almost nonexistent. This is another case, perhaps,
where Marx addresses a Christian ideal and proposes to accomplish the same
thing by material means.
Postmillennialism envisions this improvement in human nature to be
accomplished by the work of the Holy Spirit. Marxism envisions this
improvement to be accomplished by Socialism. Atheists will argue that there
is no Holy Spirit to improve man by changing him in such a way that he more
closely approximates the image of Jesus Christ. Very well, I would ask the
Socialistic atheist, what in a material system is to effect this change?
Marx wasn't specific, but Socialists have had a long time since his death to
think about it We have seen Socialism at work in many forms and stages.
Has anyone at any time in any place seen the sort of human improvement here
alluded to?
Postmillennialism is described as an "optimistic eschatology." There will
be a time when the "Word of God will cover the world as water covers the
floor of the sea." It is "optimistic" because this will occur on earth
prior to heaven. The other two major eschatologies, Amillennialism and
Premillennialism are "pessimistic.". There will be no improvement in human
nature and only small numbers will be saved. The Marxists from Trilling's
time sound "optimistic" about a Materialistic future. I wonder if that
optimism exists in the Marxist remnant that survives today.
Trilling picks up Eliot's arguments after this to say that while they are no
more tenable than Marxism, at least Eliot is not deceiving himself.
Other related posts:
