HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
by
Lewis H. Lapham
May
24, 2003
The following commentary is excerpted from the commencement
address delivered on May 11, 2003 at St. John's College.
Most
of the political arguments going forward in the world at the present moment are
the same ones that enlivened the scaffolds of Renaissance Italy annals of Imperial
Rome -- the old and bitter quarrel between time past and time future, between
the inertia of things as they are and the energy inherent in the hope of things
as they might become.
The
former and more portly faction invariably commands the popular majority. It is
the party of military parades and Late Night with David Letterman, of Time
magazine, Steven Spielberg movies, and the oil company lobbyists working the
halls of Congress.
All
of you belong, by definition if not by choice, to the party of
things-as-they-might-become. Don't underestimate the guile of your enemies. The
servants of the status quo like to say that nothing is seriously amiss, that
this is the best of all possible worlds, that the wisdom in office, whether at
the White House or on the set of Nightline, brooks neither impertinence nor
contradiction.
The
authorities rest the case for their assurance on two lines of false reasoning.
First, that the future is so dangerous that only football captains need apply,
that everything is very difficult, very complicated and very far beyond the
grasp of mere mortals who never have sailed up the Nile with Henry Kissinger.
Second, that because this is the best of all possible worlds, nothing important
remains to be said or discovered. The media have a hand in both of these
deceptions, and I speak from some experience when I say that the fear of the
future sells newspapers and bids up the market for cheap miracles and expensive
cosmetics.
The
enormous acquisitions and disseminations of knowledge over the past 20 years
(about nuclear physics, cancer cells, the history of Germany, terrorism and the
chemistry of bats) have brought forth corresponding gains in the levels of
anxiety. Hardly a day passes without somebody naming yet another substance
(previously thought to be harmless) that can kill or maim everybody in downtown
Los Angeles. The evil omens decorate the seven-o'clock news, and every
self-respecting newsletter announces the depletion of the reserves of
deutschemarks, sunlight and conscience. The seers who look into the abyss of
the millennium predict catastrophes appropriate to the fears of the audiences
they have been paid to alarm. During the span of a single week at Harper's
Magazine I once received the galley-proofs of three new books entitled, in
order of their arrival, The End of Nature, The End of Science and The End of
History.
The
rumors are as exaggerated as the ones about Saddam Hussein's inventory of
nuclear weapons. It is the business of the future to be dangerous, and most of
the people who magnify its risks do so for reasons of their own. Jealous of a
future apt to render them ridiculous or irrelevant, they bear comparison to the
French noblewoman, a duchess in her 80s, who, on seeing the first ascent of
Montgolfier's balloon from the palace of the Tuilleries in 1783, fell back upon
the cushions of her carriage and wept. "Oh yes," she said, "Now
it's certain. One day they'll learn how to keep people alive forever, but I
shall already be dead."
To
disprove the second proposition, you have only to consult the listings in any
newspaper -- any week, any edition -- to know that the Four Horsemen of the
Apocalypse are still at large on five continents and seven oceans. The
headlines give the lie to the assertion that the servants of the status quo
know why the word wags, and who or what wags it. Quite clearly, almost
everything remains to be done, said or discovered; also quite clearly, the
world stands in need of as much help as it can get, and if it doesn't get that
help from people like yourselves, then in whom does it place the hope of a new
answer, or even better, a new question.
As
a student at Yale in the 1950s I was taught to think of the 20th Century as the
miraculous and happy ending of the story of human progress; I now think of it
as a still primitive beginning. From the perspective of the 30th Century, I
expect the historians to look back upon the works of our modern world as if
upon sand castles built by surprisingly gifted children.
When
I was your age I made the mistake of imagining the future as a destination --
like Paris or Baltimore or the Gobi Desert, and I thought that in the so-called
real world the people who ran the place were made of Greek marble or Gothic
stone. As I grew older I began to notice, first to my surprise, and then to my
alarm, that the more loudly the Wizards of Oz claimed to know all the answers
the less likely that they knew even a few of the questions. The walls of the
establishment are made of paper, as often as not the fortress manned by
soldiers already dead, propped like sandbags on the parapets of office. The
party of things-as-they-are stages a great show of its magnificence in order to
conceal its weakness and fear, and it makes small complaint if all the voters
in California, New York and Michigan wander through their lives in a passive
stupor. As a nation we now spend upwards of $500 billion a year on liquor,
pornography and drugs, and the Cold War against the American intellect
constitutes a more profitable business than the old arrangement with the
Russians or the new arrangement with the viceroys of terrorist Jihad....
Democracy
allies itself with change and proceeds under the assumption that nobody knows
enough, that nothing is final, that the old order (whether of men and women or
institutions) will be carried off-stage every 20 years. The plurality of
democratic voices and forms assumes a ceaseless making and re-making -- of laws
and customs as well as of fortunes and matinee idols. Democratic government is
a purpose held in common, and if it can be understood as a set of temporary
coalitions among people of different interests, skills and generations, then
everybody has need of everybody else. To the extent that a democratic society
gives its citizens the chance to chase its own dreams, it gives itself the
chance not only of discovering its multiple glories and triumphs, but also of
surviving its multiple follies and crimes.
No
matter what the season's top billings in the American political circus, the
argument between the past and future tense falls along the division between the
people who would continue the democratic experiment and those who think that
the experiment has gone far enough. The freedom of thought and expression
presents society with the unwelcome news that it is in trouble, but because all
societies, like most individuals, are always in some kind of trouble, the news
doesn't cause them to perish. They die instead from the fear of thought and the
paralysis that accompanies the wish to make time stand still. Liberty has
ambitious enemies, but the survival of the American democracy depends less on
the size of its armies than on the capacity of its individual citizens to think
for themselves.
Tyranny
never has much trouble drumming up the smiles of prompt agreement, but a
democracy stands in need of as many questions as it can ask of its own
stupidity and fear. Idealism rescues cynicism, and the continued comfort of the
party of things-as-they-are depends on the doubts placed under their pillows by
the party of things-as-they-might-become. The future turns out to be something
that you make instead of find. It isn't waiting for your arrival, either with
an arrest warrant or a band, nor is it any further away than the next sentence,
the next best guess, the next sketch for the painting of a life portrait that
might become a masterpiece. The future is an empty canvas or a blank sheet of
paper, and if you have the courage of your own thought and your own observation
you can make of it what you will.
Lewis H. Lapham is editor of Harper's Magazine and author of Theater
of War, Money and Class in America, Imperial Masquerade, The
Wish for Kings, Hotel America, and Waiting for the Barbarians.
This speech first appeared in TomPaine.com (www.tompaine.com)