Веселье надежды

[tijd]

Ключевые слова на митингах Камалы Харрис и Тима Уолза - "Freedom", "Joy" и "Hope".

Freedom - не только лозунг избирательной кампании, но и песня Бейонсе, которая с благославления певицы эту кампанию сопровождает. Hope - имя дочери Уолза, рожденной с помощью IVF (ЭКО). Но также, как он говорит, "the most powerful word in the universe". https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/08/10/remarks-by-vice-president-harris-and-governor-tim-walz-at-a-campaign-event-in-las-vegas-nv/

Когда участники митинга скандируют слово "Hope", это вызывает разные ассоциации. Рут Бен-Гиат, историк фашизма, вспоминает про то, как в Чили прогнали Пиночета:

Hope may seem a flimsy thing to wield against autocracy, but it is the secret weapon of resistance and an essential lever of action. The opposition’s optimistic slogans “Joy is coming” and “Happiness is a rainbow” (the rainbow was Concertación’s symbol) helped to lessen fear and fatalism. A March for Joy, held days before the election, attracted hundreds of thousands.
The movement’s television ads, which featured soccer stars and ordinary people expressing hope for Chile’s future, were a sensation. Pinochet’s ads, in contrast, repeated the old talking points about the threat from leftists and harped on grievance and loss, picturing people fleeing armed mobs and screaming. Terror, in the end, was all the regime had. The courage of Chile’s citizens to get out the vote and the power of their positive messaging created the momentum to remove Pinochet from power.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2023/09/chile-coup-democracy-1988-pinochet/675275/

Click to view

На открытии Каннского кинофестивала в мае прошлого года Катрин Денев потрясла публику чтением стихотворения "Надія" Леси Украинки.

Je n’ai plus ni bonheur ni liberté,
Une seule espérance m’est restée:
Revenir un jour dans ma belle Ukraine,
Revoir une fois ma terre lointaine,
Contempler encore le Dniepr si bleu
- Y vivre ou mourir importe bien peu -,
Revoir une fois les tertres, les plaines,
Et brûler au feu des pensées anciennes…
Je n’ai plus ni bonheur ni liberté,
Une seule espérance m’est restée.

Ні долі, ні волі у мене нема,
Зосталася тільки надія одна:
Надія вернутись ще раз на Вкраїну,
Поглянути ще раз на рідну країну,
Поглянути ще раз на синій Дніпро, -
Там жити чи вмерти, мені все одно;
Поглянути ще раз на степ, могилки,
Востаннє згадати палкії гадки…
Ні долі, ні волі у мене нема,
Зосталася тільки надія одна.

Девятилетняя девочка Леся (Лариса) написала свое первое в жизни стихотворение в безнадежной ситуации, когда ее любимую тетю высылали из Украины в Сибирь.



Слово "Hope" на новом специальном варианте монеты в 25 центов - из поэмы Поли Мюррей, выдающегося борца за гражданские права. Поэма "Dark Testament" была написана в 1943, когда Мюррей училась в юридической школе Говардского университета, и посвящена Америке.

Hope is a crushed stalk
Between clenched fingers.
Hope is a bird's wing
Broken by a stone.
Hope is a word in a tuneless ditty-
A word whispered with the wind,
A dream of forty acres and a mule,
A cabin of one's own and a moment to rest,
A name and place for one's children
And children's children at last.
Hope is a song in a weary throat.
https://www.radcliffe.harvard.edu/news-and-ideas/pauli-murray-reads-dark-testament



В это же время Мюррей придумала юридическую концепцию борьбы с расовой сегрегацией, которая в итоге перевернула Plessy v. Ferguson, долгоиграющее решение Верховного суда из 1896 о законности сегрегации.

Her law-school peers were accustomed to being startled by her-she was the only woman among them and first in the class-but that day they laughed out loud. Her idea was both impractical and reckless, they told her; any challenge to Plessy would result in the Supreme Court affirming it instead. Undeterred, Murray told them they were wrong. Then, with the whole class as her witness, she made a bet with her professor, a man named Spottswood Robinson: ten bucks said Plessy would be overturned within twenty-five years.
Murray was right. Plessy was overturned in a decade-and, when it was, Robinson owed her a lot more than ten dollars. In her final law-school paper, Murray had formalized the idea she’d hatched in class that day, arguing that segregation violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Some years later, when Robinson joined with Thurgood Marshall and others to try to end Jim Crow, he remembered Murray’s paper, fished it out of his files, and presented it to his colleagues-the team that, in 1954, successfully argued Brown v. Board of Education.
By the time Murray learned of her contribution, she was nearing fifty, two-thirds of the way through a life as remarkable for its range as for its influence. A poet, writer, activist, labor organizer, legal theorist, and Episcopal priest, Murray palled around in her youth with Langston Hughes, joined James Baldwin at the MacDowell Colony the first year it admitted African-Americans, maintained a twenty-three-year friendship with Eleanor Roosevelt, and helped Betty Friedan found the National Organization for Women. Along the way, she articulated the intellectual foundations of two of the most important social-justice movements of the twentieth century: first, when she made her argument for overturning Plessy, and, later, when she co-wrote a law-review article subsequently used by a rising star at the A.C.L.U.-one Ruth Bader Ginsburg-to convince the Supreme Court that the Equal Protection Clause applies to women.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/17/the-many-lives-of-pauli-murray



Поли Мюррей могла видеть дальше других в том числе благодаря своей необычной судьбе и идентичности. Черный активист смешанной расы (на 5/8 белой, на 1/8 индейской), женщина, ощущая себя мужчиной (трансгендер по современным понятиям), испытавшая жизнь в среднем классе и в бедности и т.д. Помимо всего прочего - левша, которая сопротивлялась попыткам заставить ее писать правой рукой. Образ Америки в ее поэме - существо с двумя мозгами и двумя руками.

This is our portion, this is our testament,
This is America, dual-brained creature,
One hand thrusting us out to the stars,
One hand shoving us down in the gutter.

Click to view

Перекликается со словами другого поэта.

It’s coming to America first
The cradle of the best and of the worst
It’s here they got the range
And the machinery for change
And it’s here they got the spiritual thirst;
It’s here the family’s broken
And it’s here the lonely say
That the heart has got to open
In a fundamental way
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.



Чтобы глубже понять философский смысл понятий надежды и свободы и почему Америка - "dual-brained creature" и "cradle of the best and of the worst", следует перейти от поэзии к другим источникам.

В то время, когда Мюррей работала над юридическими идеями и писала свою поэму, Рут Бенедикт, ведущий американский антрополог, получила заказ от Пентагона на изучение культуры Японии. Многое в поведение японцев казалось необъяснимым, и нужны были советы, как с этим обращаться. Посреди войны Бенедикт не могла поехать в Японию в антропологическую экспедицию, но она попыталась узучить все, что могла, из книжек и интервью с японцами в Америке. После войны отчет превратился в книжку о "хризантеме и мече". Центральное прозрение - различие между японской "культурой стыда" (culture of shame) и американской "культурой вины" (culture of guilt).

Восточная "культура стыда" объясняла камикадзе и харакири, а также, например, поведение японских военнопленных. Если американские пленные отказывались выдавать сведения о войсках и просили в первую очередь, чтобы им помогли связаться с родными, то японские вели себя противоположным образом - попадание в плен было для них позорной «потерей лица», которой они стыдились перед семьей. Практической рекомендацией из доклада Бенедикт стал отказ от идеи устраивать трибунал подобный Нюрнбергскому и судить японского императора. Императору позволили остаться и "сохранить лицо", переложив вину на попутавших его "милитаристов". Иначе случился бы позор, которого японцы не смогли бы выдержать. Капитулировать после Хиросимы и Нагасаки для них также оказалось менее позорно, чем в обычных сражениях.

In anthropological studies of different cultures the distinction between those which rely heavily on shame and those that rely heavily on guilt is an important one. A society that inculcates absolute standards of morality and relies on men’s developing a conscience is a guilt culture by definition <...> A man who has sinned can get relief by unburdening himself. This device of confession is used in our secular therapy and by many religious groups which have otherwise little in common. We know it brings relief. Where shame is the major sanction, a man does not experience relief when he makes his fault public even to a confessor. So long as his bad behavior does not ‘get out into the world’ he need not be troubled and confession appears to him merely a way of courting trouble. Shame cultures therefore do not provide for confessions, even to the gods. They have ceremonies for good luck rather than for expiation.
True shame cultures rely on external sanctions for good behavior, not, as true guilt cultures do, on an internalized conviction of sin. Shame is a reaction to other people’s criticism. A man is shamed either by being openly ridiculed and rejected or by fantasying to himself that he has been made ridiculous. In either case it is a potent sanction. But it requires an audience or at least a man’s fantasy of an audience. Guilt does not. In a nation where honor means living up to one’s own picture of oneself, a man may suffer from guilt though no man knows of his misdeed and a man’s feeling of guilt may actually be relieved by confessing his sin.
The early Puritans who settled in the United States tried to base their whole morality on guilt and all psychiatrists know what trouble contemporary Americans have with their consciences. <...> We do not harness the acute personal chagrin which accompanies shame to our fundamental system of morality.
The Japanese do. A failure to follow their explicit signposts of good behavior, a failure to balance obligations or to foresee contingencies is a shame (haji). Shame, they say, is the root of virtue. A man who is sensitive to it will carry out all the rules of good behavior. ‘A man who knows shame’ is sometimes translated ‘virtuous man,’ sometimes ‘man of honor.’ Shame has the same place of authority in Japanese ethics that ‘a clear conscience,’ ‘being right with God,’ and the avoidance of sin have in Western ethics.
https://www.fadedpage.com/books/20190750/html.php



Лорд Джонатан Сакс, главный раввин Великобритании и философ по образованию, развил мысль Бенедикт дальше. Во-первых, он отмечает, что культура стыда - визуальная, в ней имеет значение внешняя видимость. Культура вины - аудиальная, в ней имеет значение внутренний голос совести.

Philosophers, among them Bernard Williams, have pointed out that shame cultures are usually visual. Shame itself has to do with how you appear (or imagine you appear) in other peoples’ eyes. The instinctive reaction to shame is to wish you were invisible, or somewhere else. Guilt, by contrast, is much more internal. You cannot escape it by becoming invisible or being elsewhere. Your conscience accompanies you wherever you go, regardless of whether you are seen by others. Guilt cultures are cultures of the ear, not the eye. <...>
The sin of the first humans in the Garden of Eden was that they followed their eyes, not their ears. Their actions were determined by what they saw, the beauty of the tree, not by what they heard, namely the word of God commanding them not to eat from it. The result was that they did indeed acquire a knowledge of Good and Evil, but it was the wrong kind. They acquired an ethic of shame, not guilt; of appearances not conscience. That, I believe, is what Maimonides meant by his distinction between true-and-false and “things generally accepted.” A guilt ethic is about the inner voice that tells you, “This is right, that is wrong”, as clearly as “This is true, that is false”. But a shame ethic is about social convention. It is a matter of meeting or not meeting the expectations others have of you.
Shame cultures are essentially codes of social conformity. They belong to groups where socialisation takes the form of internalising the values of the group such that you feel shame - an acute form of embarrassment - when you break them, knowing that if people discover what you have done you will lose honour and ‘face’.
https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/bereishit/the-art-of-listening/

Во-вторых, вместо дихотомии Америки и Японии Сакс рассматривает дихотомию двух столпов западной культуры - древнегреческой визуальной "культуры стыда" и иудейской аудиальной "культуры вины".

The twin foundations on which Western culture was built were ancient Greece and ancient Israel. They could not have been more different. Greece was a profoundly visual culture. Its greatest achievements had to do with the eye, with seeing. It produced some of the greatest art, sculpture, and architecture the world has ever seen. Its most characteristic group events - theatrical performances and the Olympic games - were spectacles: performances that were watched. Plato thought of knowledge as a kind of depth vision, seeing beneath the surface to the true form of things.
This idea - that knowing is seeing - remains the dominant metaphor in the West even today. We speak of insight, foresight, and hindsight. We offer an observation. We adopt a perspective. We illustrate. We illuminate. We shed light on an issue. When we understand something, we say, “I see.”
Judaism offered a radical alternative. It is faith in a God we cannot see, a God who cannot be represented visually. The very act of making a graven image - a visual symbol - is a form of idolatry. As Moses reminded the people in last week’s parsha, when the Israelites had a direct encounter with God at Mount Sinai, “You heard the sound of words, but saw no image; there was only a voice.” (Deut. 4:12). God communicates in sounds, not sights. He speaks. He commands. He calls. That is why the supreme religious act is shema. When God speaks, we listen. When He commands, we try to obey.
Rabbi David Cohen (1887-1972), known as the Nazirite, a disciple of Rav Kook and the father of R. Shear-Yashuv Cohen, Chief Rabbi of Haifa, pointed out that in the Babylonian Talmud all the metaphors of understanding are based not on seeing but on hearing. Ta shema, “come and hear.” Ka mashma lan, “It teaches us this.” Shema mina, “Infer from this.” Lo shemiyah lei, “He did not agree.” A traditional teaching is called shamaytta, “that which was heard.” And so on.[3] All of these are variations on the word shema.
This may seem like a small difference, but it is in fact a huge one. For the Greeks, the ideal form of knowledge involved detachment. There is the one who sees, the subject, and there is that which is seen, the object, and they belong to two different realms. A person who looks at a painting or a sculpture or a play in a theatre or the Olympic games is not an active part of the art or the drama or the athletic competition. They are acting as a spectator, not a participant.
Speaking and listening are not forms of detachment. They are forms of engagement. They create a relationship. The Hebrew word for knowledge, da’at, implies involvement, closeness, intimacy. “And Adam knew Eve his wife and she conceived and gave birth” (Gen. 4:1). That is knowing in the Hebrew sense, not the Greek. We can enter into a relationship with God, even though He is infinite and we are finite, because we are linked by words. In revelation, God speaks to us. In prayer, we speak to God. If you want to understand any relationship, between husband and wife, or parent and child, or employer and employee, pay close attention to how they speak and listen to one another. Ignore everything else.
https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/eikev/the-spirituality-of-listening/



Развивая мысль еще дальше, можно отметить, что дихотомия двух культур касается разного восприятия пространства и времени. В "культуре стыда" время непрерывно, а пространство разрывно. Человек не меняется, но может оказаться по другую сторону барьера, остраняющего его от общества. В "культуре вины" время разрывно, а пространство непрерывно. Звук проникает сквозь стены, которые оказываются эфемерными барьерами, а человек может измениться, в том числе покаявшись за прошлое.

Отсутствие барьеров в пространстве - это и есть свобода ("Freedom"), метафорически соответствующая полету птицы или движению корабля в море, а способность времени рваться - это и есть основание для надежды ("Hope"). Иудаизм по Саксу предстает религией неистребимой надежды.

There are no logical grounds to believe that tomorrow will be better than today. The alternative - the tragic sense of life - is equally coherent and consistent with human history. However, Judaism is a religion of hope. Even after the early narratives of failure - Adam, Cain, the generation of the Flood, the tower of Babel - God does not give up, and because of that, neither do we. I find it astonishing that after all the catastrophes of the past Jews did not despair.
Where does hope come from? Hope is not a mere feeling, something we share with non-human forms of life. Nor does it exist in every possible culture. It comes from a specific set of beliefs: that the Universe is not blind to our dreams, deaf to our prayers; that we are not alone; that we are here because someone willed us to be and that our very existence is testament to the creative force of love.
The human story can be told many ways. The Hebrew Bible could be turned into Greek tragedy without changing a word. Instead of creating the just society, Israel would be seen to have failed and been reduced to anarchy.
Hope and tragedy do not differ about facts but about interpretation and expectation. But they make a moral difference. Those who hope, strive. Those who are disillusioned, accept. A morality of hope lives in the belief that we can change the world for the better.
https://rabbisacks.org/archive/the-holy-and-the-good/

Сакс обращает внимание на то, что в традиционном иврите нет слова "трагедия", потому что в иудаизме отсутствует фатализм древнегреческой трагедии. Вместо него - неистребимая надежда на изменение.

Shame and necessity give rise to a culture of tragedy. Guilt, repentance and responsibility give rise to one of hope. If we have free will, we are not slaves to fate. If at the heart of reality there is a forgiving presence, then we are not condemned by guilt. ‘Penitence, prayer and charity avert the evil decree’, goes one of the most famous Jewish prayers. There is no fate that is inevitable, no future pre-determined, no outcome we cannot avert. There is always a choice. There are tragic cultures and there are hope cultures, and, though some combine elements of both, the two are ultimately incompatible. In hope cultures, we are agents. We choose. All depends on what we decide, and that cannot be known in advance. In tragic cultures, we are victims. We are acted on by forces beyond our control, and they will eventually defeat even the strongest. The only redemption of victimhood is to refuse that self-definition. In the long run no good can come of it, for it belongs to a world of tragedy. It divides us into victims and oppressors - and we are always the victims, while the others are the oppressors. Look at any conflict zone in the world and you will find that both sides see themselves as the victims, therefore innocent, and the others as the wrongdoers. That is a recipe for perpetual conflict and perennial disappointment. There is only resentment, rage and desire for revenge, all of which achieve nothing since all they do is provoke a reaction of attempted retaliation. The choice of freedom brings the defeat of victimhood and the redemptive birth of hope.
https://rabbisacks.org/quotes/a-culture-of-hope/

Click to view

По соседству с надеждой обитает веселье ("Joy") - радость от слома барьеров и воссоединения с другими людьми. Иудаизм по Саксу - еще и Ода Веселью.

There are Eastern faiths that promise peace of mind if we can train ourselves into habits of acceptance. Epicurus taught his disciples to avoid risks like marriage or a career in public life. Neither of these approaches is to be negated, yet Judaism is not a religion of acceptance, nor have Jews tended to seek the risk-free life. We can survive the failures and defeats if we never lose the capacity for joy. Every Succot we leave the security and comfort of our houses and live in a shack exposed to the wind, the cold, and the rain. Yet we call it zeman simchatenu, our season of joy. That is no small part of what it is to be a Jew.
Hence Moses’ insistence that the capacity for joy is what gives the Jewish people the strength to endure. Without it, we become vulnerable to the multiple disasters set out in the curses in our parsha. Celebrating together binds us as a people: that and the gratitude and humility that come from seeing our achievements not as self-made but as the blessings of God. The pursuit of happiness can lead, ultimately, to self-regard and indifference to the sufferings of others. It can lead to risk-averse behaviour and a failure to “dare greatly”. Not so joy. Joy connects us to others and to God. Joy is the ability to celebrate life as such, knowing that whatever tomorrow may bring, we are here today, under God’s Heaven, in the universe He made, to which He has invited us as His guests.
Toward the end of his life, having been deaf for twenty years, Beethoven composed one of the greatest pieces of music ever written, his Ninth Symphony. Intuitively he sensed that this work needed the sound of human voices. It became the West’s first choral symphony. The words he set to music were Schiller’s Ode to Joy. I think of Judaism as an ode to joy. Like Beethoven, Jews have known suffering, isolation, hardship, and rejection, yet they never lacked the religious courage to rejoice. A people that can know insecurity and still feel joy is one that can never be defeated, for its spirit can never be broken nor its hope destroyed. As individuals we may aspire to the goodness that leads to happiness, but as part of a moral and spiritual community, even in hard times we find ourselves lifted on the wings of joy.
https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/ki-tavo/the-pursuit-of-joy/



Когда Рут Бенедикт определяла американскую культуру, как культуру вины, она отталкивалась от своего окружения в Нью-Йорке. Более детальный взгляд появился в других работах.

Историк Бертрам Уайетт-Браун занимался историей американского Юга. Не зная о работах Бенедикт, он подошел к изучению традиционной культуры Юга, как антрополог, и классифицировал ее, как культуру стыда, или, что то же самое, "культуру чести". Книжка Уайетта-Брауна о южной чести вышла в 1982.

To begin with, he argues that the South was under the thumb of an essentially primitive fear of community opinion: "Honor, not conscience, shame, not guilt, were the psychological underpinnings of Southern culture." Although Wyatt-Brown does not employ the term, the South was "other-directed" as defined by David Riesman; as Wyatt-Brown puts it, "The internal man and the external realities of his existence are united in such a way that he knows no other good or evil except that which the collective group designates. He reflects society as society reflects him." What he and society both seek is honor:
"Honor is first the inner conviction of self-worth. Seemingly, that sense of personal completeness would comply with modern notions of individuality: all men are created equal... But he is not yet modern man, who is fully equipped with independent judgment, ready to experiment, reform, innovate. (So at least we like to imagine modern attributes.) The second aspect of honor is the claim of that self-assessment before the public. . . . The third element is the assessment of the claim by the public, a judgment based upon the behavior of the claimant. In other words, honor is reputation."
It is Wyatt-Brown's conviction that "the determination of men to have power, prestige and self-esteem and to immortalize these acquisitions through their progeny was the key to the South's development." The emphasis must be on men, for the social hierarchy of the "pre-modern" South was rigidly, fanatically patriarchal. In substantial measure, the Southern male's code of honor was what we now define and/or dismiss as "machismo": a heavy emphasis on "personal bravery," an obsession with family reputation and a zeal to defend it with violence if necessary, an overblown fantasy of female virtue, a zeal for bonds whether of blood or of oath. These "primal" concepts of male honor were somewhat tempered by the "sociability, learning and piety" that characterized Southern pretensions of "gentility," but they were the essential ingredients of a code of behavior:
"Honor, for all its variations -- from primal valor to Christian graciousness, from bloody deed to 'right reason' -- provided a means to restrict human choices, to point a way out of chaos. Thus it helped Southern whites to make life somewhat more predictable than it would have been otherwise. It established signposts of appropriate conduct. It staved off the danger of self-love and vainglory and in the circles of the genteel, it elevated moderation and learnedness to virtues of self-disciplined community service. Since honor gave meaning to lives, it existed not as a myth but as a vital code."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/entertainment/books/1982/09/05/so-are-they-all-all-honorable-men/2faeb4c3-1774-4cb9-b750-3684f65c486b/



Эпизод, когда южанин-конгрессмен, не выдержав оскорбления, избил тростью сенатора Самнера из Массачусетса - характерный пример "культуры чести/стыда". Параллель, который Самнер, с подачи декабриста Тургенева, проводил между американским рабством и российским крепостничеством, помогает понять происхождение культуры чести, которая была в это время не менее характерна для российских дворян и привела Пушкина на роковую дуэль.

Центральным символом статуса в обоих обществах выступало владение землей, вместе с которым приходило владение людьми. В воспиятие мира таким образом оказываелось зашито понятие о дробление пространства на земельные владения, а границы между людьми представлялись неизменными во времени из-за врожденных характеристик. Человек чести (российский дворянин или американский плантатор) не приобретали этот статус со временем, а рождались вместе с ним и в дальнейшем поддерживали его своим внешним видом и поведением.

В книге "Жизнь на Миссисипи" Марк Твейн указывал на развращающее влияние, которое оказали на американских южан романы Вальтера Скотта с их воспеванием былого рыцарского благородства. По мнению Твейна, Скотт отчасти нес вину за Гражданскую войну и упорное нежелание Юга признавать поражение.

"Then comes Sir Walter Scott with his enchantments, and by his single might checks this wave of progress, and even turns it back; sets the world in love with dreams and phantoms; with decayed and swinish forms of religion; with decayed and degraded systems of government; with the sillinesses and emptinesses, sham grandeurs, sham gauds, and sham chivalries of a brainless and worthless long-vanished society. He did measureless harm; more real and lasting harm, perhaps, than any other individual that ever wrote. Most of the world has now outlived good part of these harms, though by no means all of them; but in our South they flourish pretty forcefully still. Not so forcefully as half a generation ago, perhaps, but still forcefully. There, the genuine and wholesome civilization of the nineteenth century is curiously confused and commingled with the Walter Scott Middle-Age sham civilization; and so you have practical, common-sense, progressive ideas, and progressive works; mixed up with the duel, the inflated speech, and the jejune romanticism of an absurd past that is dead, and out of charity ought to be buried. But for the Sir Walter disease, the character of the Southerner-or Southron, according to Sir Walter’s starchier way of phrasing it-would be wholly modern, in place of modern and medieval mixed, and the South would be fully a generation further advanced than it is. It was Sir Walter that made every gentleman in the South a Major or a Colonel, or a General or a Judge, before the war; and it was he, also, that made these gentlemen value these bogus decorations. For it was he that created rank and caste down there, and also reverence for rank and caste, and pride and pleasure in them. Enough is laid on slavery, without fathering upon it these creations and contributions of Sir Walter.
Sir Walter had so large a hand in making Southern character, as it existed before the war, that he is in great measure responsible for the war. It seems a little harsh toward a dead man to say that we never should have had any war but for Sir Walter; and yet something of a plausible argument might, perhaps, be made in support of that wild proposition. The Southerner of the American Revolution owned slaves; so did the Southerner of the Civil War: but the former resembles the latter as an Englishman resembles a Frenchman. The change of character can be traced rather more easily to Sir Walter’s influence than to that of any other thing or person."
https://www.telelib.com/authors/T/TwainMark/prose/lifeonmississippi/lifeonmississippi46.html

Click to view

Влияние Вальтера Скотта было, разумеется, более сложным. Персонаж его поэмы «Дева озера» подарил новую фамилию Фредерику Дугласу, борцу за права черного населения и политическому соратнику Твейна. Находясь под впечатлением от лекции Дугласа в 1880, Твейн записывает в записной книжке:

"There is not a single hardly a single not a single celebrated Southern name in any of the departments of human industry except those of war, assasination, lynching, murder, the duel, repudiation, & massacre.
There is not a living Southern celebrity in art, today; nor science etc."
https://marktwainstudies.com/freddouglassmarktwain/

Примерно в это же время он начал работу над "Приключениями Гекльберри Финна".



Связь культуры стыда/чести с насилием неслучайна. Психиатр Джеймс Гиллиган, профессор Гарварда, посвятил свою карьеру изучению причин насилия и провел много лет, работая в тюрьмах с осужденными за насильственные преступления. Главный вывод его исследований - необходимым (но не всегда достаточным) условием для возникновения насилия является чувство стыда и унижения.

I have yet to see a serious act of violence that was not provoked by the experience of feeling shamed and humiliated, disrespected and ridiculed, and that did not represent the attempt to prevent or undo this “loss of face” - no matter how severe the punishment, even if it includes death. For we misunderstand these men, at our peril, if we do not realize they mean it literally when they say they would rather kill or mutilate others, be killed or mutilated themselves, than live without pride, dignity, and self-respect. They literally prefer death to dishonor.That hunger strikes in prison go on when inmates feel their pride has been irredeemably wounded, and they see refusing to eat as their only way of asserting their dignity and autonomy and protesting the injustices of which they perceive themselves to be the victims, suggests to me that Frantz Fanon was expressing a psychological truth for many when he said “hunger with dignity is preferable to bread eaten in slavery.”
Perhaps the lesson of all this for society is that when men feel sufficiently impotent and humiliated, the usual assumptions one makes about human behavior and motivation, such as the wish to eat when starving, the wish to live or stay out of prison at all costs, no longer hold. Einstein taught us that Newton’s laws do not hold when objects approach the speed of light; what I have learned about humans is that the “instinct of (physiological) self-preservation” does not hold when one approaches the point of being so overwhelmed by shame that one can only preserve one’s self (as a psychological entity) by sacrificing one’s body (or those of others).
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003060581-18/shame-james-gilligan

Взаимоисключающее противопоставление стыда и вины для Гиллигина - вопрос не антропологии, а личной психологии.

Freud commented that no one feels as guilty as the saints, to which I would add that no one feels as innocent as the criminals; their lack of guilt feelings, even over the most atrocious of crimes, is one of their most prominent characteristics. But, of course, that would have to be true, for if they had the capacity to feel guilty over hurting other people, they would not have the emotional capacity to hurt them. <...>
A central precondition for committing violence, then, is the presence of overwhelming shame in the absence of feelings of either love or guilt; the shame stimulates rage, and violent impulses, toward the person in whose eyes one feels shamed, and the feelings that would normally inhibit the expression of those feelings and the acting out of those impulses, such as love and or guilt, are absent.



Патриархат, как органическая часть "культуры стыда", играет в такой культуре не менее ключевую роль. Уайетт-Браун писал:  "the social hierarchy of the pre-modern South was rigidly, fanatically patriarchal". С одной стороны, отношение к белой женщине на Юге отличается подчеркнутой рыцарской галантностью. С другой стороны, женщина занимает в иерархической структуре отдельную подчиненную роль, далекую от равноправия.

Ослепленные "культурой вины" феминистки второй волны не до конца понимали, насколько женщин другой культуры может устраивать подчиненное положение и пугать попытки его изменить.

Southern white culture had long been a stronghold of traditional gender norms. In theory, the ideal Southern white woman was placed on a pedestal: financially supported, removed from the hardships of public life and protected from dangerous black men she was taught to fear. For poor and working-class white women, the pedestal and its protections were more aspirational than real, but the ideal was nonetheless powerful and pervasive in the South.
Schlafly’s STOP ERA, which stood for Stop Taking Our Privileges, had capitalized upon this cultural norm, persuading Southern white women to reverse their positions on the ERA. In 1976, 64 percent of Southern white women supported the ERA, while 16 percent were opposed. By 1980, however, support had dropped to 42 percent, while opposition swelled to 44 percent - a much more drastic shift than in other regions of the country. <...> In 1982, the ERA fell three states short of ratification, even with an extended deadline. In the end, the ERA failed in every Southern state except Texas and Tennessee (which tried to rescind its vote).
Two years later, feminists’ lobbying secured the Democratic vice presidential slot for Rep. Geraldine Ferraro. But even though Democrats had a woman on the ballot, or perhaps because of it, Reagan increased his margin of victory among white women, particularly Southern white women.
The next time a woman appeared on the Democratic ticket - this time at the top - the problem of the oversimplified notion of a gender gap was even clearer. Hillary Clinton crushed Donald Trump among nonwhite women and even won white women living outside the South. However, among white women in the states of the former Confederacy, Trump, who was endorsed early on by Phyllis Schlafly, bested Clinton by 25 points, 58 percent to 33 percent.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/09/10/why-southern-white-women-vote-against-feminism/



В среднем по стране разрыв между мужскими и женскими голосами - примета эпохи Рейгана, которая ныне близится к закату. В 1981, оглядываясь на победу Рейгана, 60-летняя Бетти Фридан писала:

The Republicans, in fact, probably lost the votes of the single largest voting bloc in this election as a result of the extreme stand they took on their platform, repudiating the equal rights amendment, vowing to amend the Constitution to outlaw abortion and pledging to appoint judges who concurred with these views. It is noteworthy that there was a 16 percent difference between the voting of women and men in the 1980 Presidential election. According to a New York Times/CBS News Poll, Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter by an overwhelming 54 to 37 percent among men, but only by 46 to 45 percent among women. The majority of women (52 percent) voted against Reagan - (45 percent for Carter; 7 percent for Anderson). In the years since exit polls have been taken, there has never been such a discrepancy between men's and women's voting. In the previous Presidential election, the male and female percentages were nearly identical. Further, women who were for the equal rights amendment voted overwhelmingly against Reagan - 65 percent to 32 percent, or more than 2 to 1. This women's rights bloc constituted 22 percent of the total vote, a larger bloc than blacks (10 percent), Hispanics (2 percent) and Jews (5 percent) combined, or even than blue-collar workers (17 percent). Women who opposed the E.R.A. constituted only 15 percent of the vote and they supported Reagan even more avidly than men -66 percent compared with 29 percent for Carter.
https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/05/magazine/feminism-s-next-step.html

Главным достижением Фридан и общественной огранизации NOW (National Organization for Women), которую она основала совместно с Поли Мюррей и другими активистами, стало продвижение идеи "personhood of a woman" - представления о том, что женщина - полноправный человек и ее роль в обществе не сводится к отношениям с мужчиной. Но вместе с достижениями пришли и поражения - не только в попытке принятия Equal Rights Amendment, но и, например, в попытке принять законы о доступном уходе за детьми.

"We can't go back and we shouldn't go back." When asked how embattled women are going to go forward, she explodes. "Don't ask what women are going to do. Ask what women and men are going to do! If you take a question like child care as just a woman's problem, forget it, forget it!"
She points out that more than 45 percent of the mothers of children under 6 are now working because of economic necessity due to inflation, compared with only 10 percent in 1960. This worries her because "no major national effort is being made for child-care services by government, business, labor, Democratic or Republican parties - or by the women's movement itself."
https://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/19/style/betty-friedan-ushers-in-a-second-stage.html



Поэма Мюррей начинается со слов о том, что свобода - это мечта и что можно убить мечтателей, но нельзя убить мечту.

Freedom is a dream
Haunting as amber wine
Or worlds remembered out of time.
Not Eden's gate, but freedom
Lures us down a trail of skulls
Where men forever crush the dreamers-
Never the dream.

В Америке, как и в христианстве, сплетаются традиции двух разных культур. Это придает стране силу, но и превращает ее историю в непрекращающуюся борьбу, шизофренически раздирающую существо с двумя мозгами. Мечта о свободе, в триаде с надеждой и весельем, продолжает возраждаться и побеждать по-новому в каждом поколении.

Click to view