Paul B Armstrong, though a Professor of English Literature, has a high IQ. He views E.M Forster- who was hugely self-aware of the trajectory of his own ancestral Clapham Sect's Evangelical Utilitarianism, if not its polar opposite, viz. German beamtenliberalismus - as a practitioner, avant la lettre, of Richard Rorty's brand of 'liberal irony'-
According to Rorty, "liberal ironists" combine commitment with a sense of the contingency of their own commitments.
Perhaps Rorty believed that people who weren't 'liberal ironists' believed their own commitments weren't contingent on their being alive. That is why they would commit to returning from the grave to attend their great great grand daughter's mat mitzvah.
They believe that "cruelty is the worst thing we do',
Non-liberals think cruelly plucking out and eating the eyes of little babies is the nicest thing we can do.
even though they recognize that this conviction, like all values, is culturally relative, contestable, and without absolute foundations.
A Liberal has the same oikeiosis- i.e. class, culture, community and country- as a Conservative. Her political views or ideology, on the other hand, is not a function of oikeiosis. It is a free choice. Many Liberals start off as Revolutionary Radicals before moderating their views. The foundation of this oikeiosis is a set of what John Maynard Smith called 'uncorrelated asymmetries'. Smith, like Haldane started off on the Left. Others- like Gladstone- may arrive at Liberalism from the opposite, i.e. a theological, direction. The essential commonality Liberals share is an optimism regarding the effects of 'social engineering'. They see the upside of removing 'Chesterton's fence' because the reason it was erected may have ceased to apply long ago.
For the Liberal, the Social Contract- even if founded on indefeasible principles- is considered incomplete and capable of improvement. Binmore sees the essence of this creed in the folk theorem of repeated games. Anything achievable coercively is achievable non-coercively through incentive compatible mechanism design. The foundation of this oikeiosis is a set of what John Maynard Smith called 'uncorrelated asymmetries'. Smith, like Haldane started off on the Left. But Evangelicals moving in a Utilitarian direction had, over the generations, already arrived at that position.
One might say that it was ironic that Liberals often backed policies which cut against their own economic interests. The Marxist view was that the eclipse or expropriation of the propertied class, which had nurtured this ideology, was inevitable. Progressive members of the Bourgeoisie were turkeys voting for Thanksgiving. Sadly, Marxism was stupid shit. Ironically, Hegel's critique of romantic irony leant romance to coprophagy.
I will try to suggest Forster's affinities to a paradoxical "liberal irony" by imagining the position he would take in the debate between Jiirgen Habermas and Jean-Francois Lyotard over the politics of legitimation.
Forster would not participate in such a debate. He knew that the English conception of legitimacy- which involves 'the Crown in Parliament'- was quite unlike anything to be found on the Continent- not to mention the revolutionary notions prevalent on the other side of the pond.
Like Rorty, Forster would like Lyotard's skepticism about the untranscendable heterogeniety of different perspectives
English literature is unlike French literature in that there are no boundaries between genres. Lyotard believed that ' Phrases from heterogeneous regimens cannot be translated from one into the other. They can be linked one onto the other in accordance with an end fixed by the genre of discourse'. Racine wouldn't a smutty joke into a tragedy. Shakespeare would. As for perspectives, one's own might be beyond words because one is an Anglo Saxon, not a fucking cheese eating surrender monkey.
with Habermas's affirmation of mutual understanding and uncoerced exchange as desirable ideals.
Nobody in their right mind would want to exchange ideas with a fucking Kraut.
Like Trilling, both Rorty and Forster believe that political action must be pragmatically contradictory and ironic about the ideals it pursues
because it is important for an Englishman to have a sense of humour. Otherwise, he might be mistaken for some disgusting type of foreigner.
not because "balance" is the most "realistic" attitude but because "truth" is always deferred.
At least, till the ladies have withdrawn to the drawing room and the men are left to their port and cigars.
Forster's description of the British official class in a small Indian town was easy to understand for the English- or, indeed, the Indians. Indeed, the thing was legible to a ten year old boy in his first year at boarding school. His own beloved elder brother or cousin would ignore him or order him about or beat him just for the fun of it. This was how the seniors established their authority. Mrs. Moore is a bit stupid. Ronnie should have said to her, 'Mum, if I am nice to any Indian, the story will get around that the fellow is my 'bag man'- i.e. he must be paid off if a favourable judgment from me is required.' If you want to befriend Indians go do it somewhere where your son isn't the magistrate. Take this chap Aziz. Did you know be is a pal of barrister Habibullah? If you accept hospitality from him, the story will get around that I am in the pay of the Muslim faction in the town. The Chief Commissioner will recommend my transfer to some shithole where I will die of dysentery or malaria. Please don't ruin my career.' The fact is, Ronnie isn't close to his mother. She had remarried and had two kids with her second husband.
Armstrong quotes E.M Forster's response to criticism by the 'Anglo-Indians'. : "If I saw more of Anglo-India at work . . . I should of course realize its difficulties and loyalties better and write about it from within. Well and good, but you forget the price to be paid: I should begin to write about Indians from without".
In other words, he would not be able to portray their resentment. The solution to the underlying problem had already been implemented- Elections and 'Dyarchy' where elected Indians would exercise increasing control. The Indian Civil Servant could then become just as civil as the British official. But this would not make for a very interesting novel more particularly for the Americans who actually had a colour bar and, in many States, a ban on inter-racial marriage.
Armstrong writes-
This response suggests that knowledge is inevitably exclusionary,
Forster admits that 'telepathy' or something yet more mystical or magical might be a real thing. Some analytical philosophers dabbled in Psychic research.
one's perspective necessarily setting one at odds with other standpoints.
One's interests or affiliations or 'oikeiosis' might do so. Perspectives are easily changed. Oikeiosis- where you belong- isn't.
If such conflicts are unavoidable, however, then the ideal of mutual recognition between knower and known would seem doomed.
This is why when Dr. Watson knew he was talking to Sherlock Holmes, Holmes would be all like 'Queen Victoria! How nice to see you! Have a cuppa.'
Even if two parties overcome their opposition, their convergence only sets up differences between themselves and some other party. Because knowledge is necessarily perspectival, one can recognize another only by refusing recognition to someone else.
If Holmes recognizes Watson he will no longer be able to distinguish between Mrs. Hudson and the hat stand.
The conflicts marking the reception of A Passage to India
there was no conflict. Lord Reading, as Viceroy, had made a big deal out of lifting the 'colour bar'. Moreover a Labour administration had formed. It was obvious that Dyarchy would soon turn into Provincial Autonomy. The next step would be the creation of a Federal Government. Instead of conflict between Indians and Europeans, the big problem faced by the Viceroy was Hindu-Muslim riots. In that respect, Forster's work was an own goal. It harmed the cause of his pal Masood while allowing that some Hindu Mahatma might have super-powers.
suggests that the novel offers a strategically ambiguous positive response to Edward Said's question: "How can one study other cultures and from a libertarian, or a non-repressive and non-manipulative perspective?"
The answer was- leave such matters in the capable hands of the Secretary of State and the Viceroy. India had been admitted to the League of Nations and would become self-administering and self-garrisoning just like the settler colonies.
(24). A liberating, non-instrumental understanding of others
is nonsense. Understanding some other bloke doesn't liberate shit. Britain had to fight a long and bloody war to liberate Belgium.
coincides with the ideal of a non-reified knowledge based on mutual recognition
like Holmes recognizing and being recognized by Watson. This may be a non-reified knowledge but it just inst' very interesting.
which the novel endorses and, for some readers, achieves.
Englishmen don't have to understand each other to reach a good enough political modus vivendi. Forster had voiced the doubt in the mind of a lot of people at that time as to whether darkies could rule themselves in the Western manner. Still, Imperialism was boring and not particularly profitable. Some sort of deal would have to be done before the Indian masses turned to Bolshevism.
These epistemological dilemmas not only mark the history of A Passage to India's reception but also are central themes in the work itself.
Nobody was greatly concerned with such dilemmas. The fact is a nice English lady had been the head of the Indian Home Rule League. She was also the head of the Theosophical Society and was promoting a darkie as the Universal Messiah. Forster does have a mystical character- Prof. Godbole- and the world was learning about India's Mahatma. But, what did this have to do with the price of potatoes? At the end of the day, that's what matters.
I suppose Armstrong belonged to a generation of academics who were often mistaken for hatstands or urinals by their stoned students. They would plead for a bit of respect and recognition in between suggesting that when you encounter alterity- i.e. meet some one else- you should not immediately kill and eat that person. Why not play a game of badminton or offer each other rape counselling?
Forster's "double turn" in affirming and contesting the possibility of non-reifying knowledge
i.e. understanding that Mrs. Hudson is a person. She is not a thing- like the hatstand.
can be seen in the novel's contradictory treatment of Anglo-Indian claims to interpretive authority from "experience."
Forster went to a boarding school. He knew that experienced Masters- or even Prefects- exercised authority in a manner that was effective enough, provided they had gauged the circumstances correctly. But those circumstances were changing. The Secretary of State and the Viceroy had recognized this. Already, a general election had been held. There was 'Dyarchy'. Authority was shared with elected Indian politicians.
Much is made of the irony that appeals like the Collector's to his "twenty-five years' experience of this country' entitling him to speak with "the whole weight of ... authority'
result in disastrous misreadings.
There is no disaster. The Collector did a good enough job. It was his wife who failed in her duty to explain to Mrs. Moore and to Adela that young Ronny's career would be spoiled if they accepted lavish hospitality from an Indian belonging to one political faction. A Magistrate must be seen to be impartial. This means his Mummy and Wifey, too, must hold themselves aloof from those who might be suspected of wishing to influence the outcome of trials.
It must also be said that Ronny made a big mistake in letting the Superintendent of Police act as the prosecutor even though the defendant had hired a high powered barrister. The Collector probably wasn't as attached to Ronny as he made out. His own 'bundobast' was good enough. Anyway, he wasn't on the judicial side. It did not harm to show that those duffers are as thick as shit.
There is no 'double turn' or 'differance' in Forster. There are misunderstandings and there is some light comedy of manners. Old women tend to be stupid. They lack savoir faire. Still, their instincts may be sound. Mental and moral health require a balance between Instinct and Intelligence. But what might that be could not be spoken of by those whose Love 'dared not speak its name'. Still, there was the plain, Anglo Saxon, tradition of co-existence. Forster had been a conscientious objector during the war. But he served his country in Egypt in a non-military capacity. Different men have different notions of duty. But they can all do their duty well enough. Russell thought it his duty to dissuade America from entering the War on the side of England and France. The Government did its duty by sending him to jail. There was no lasting bitterness. This is because England's Revolution- the one it terms Glorious- was bloodless. Not so, the French or Russian or even the American Revolutions. There is no need for palinode or aporia where accommodation is easily enough achieved. That's what happened in India. There was some bitter polemics and political theatre but a peaceful, boringly constitutional, transfer of power.
It must be said, Forster remained a friend of India- and Indian students at Cambridge- to the end of his long life. It was the Aligarh Muslim that he let down- albeit unconsciously and without malice aforethought. Disappointment in love can have that effect.
No comments:
Post a Comment