This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Shakespeare, Honor, Unitary Leadership, and How To End the Culture War
As part of my continuing effort to give myself the Classical Education I believe in, I’ve been working my way through Shakespeare. I have been listening to the lectures in this class on latter Shakespearean works in a sort of random order, after listening to the play in question here and occasionally reading passages as I go. The beauty of the work is really making me happy. But in this case I want to talk about some events in the play Cymbeline.
Cymbeline is considered a “problem play” by many scholars. It is marked in different contemporary printings as both The Tragedie of Cymbeline and as Cymbeline, King of Britain; the former suggests the work is a tragedy while the latter suggests it is a history. Parts of the play definitely suggest a tragedy is oncoming, from the jealousy, trickery and banishment to the soliloquized contemplation of suicide by main characters. And Cymbeline is a pseudo-historical king of Britain
, probably familiar to the audience of the time from works in the Matter of Britain, who did have significant interactions with the Romans; though it is always unclear what contemporary educated Brits considered “Historical truth." Much of the play’s content suggests a comedy, with comic relief characters playing a major role, and the play concludes with all the “good" characters and warring sides reconciled, all the evil characters dead, peace and love reign and the true heirs are returned to the throne. It does not neatly characterize itself the way that headliners like Hamlet, Richard II, and A Midsummer Night’s Dream fit gracefully within their genres.
The play really does have it all, from a Blue Pill v Red Pill debate over whether AWALT, to hidden heirs returning to heroically defend British independence in battle, gender bending and cross-dressing heroines, wicked stepmothers, the courtship of the Rich English Doofus, questions of family and duty. But what really caught my eye about the play, and lead to my deeper examination and meditation on its meaning, was the political conflict between Rome and Britain, and the way it plays out through names. This play isn’t a comedy or a tragedy, it is primarily a parable, it is no more about Leonatus and Imogen than Animal Farm is about the windmill.
THESIS: Cymbeline is primarily a play about Roman Catholicism in England, a plea by a Catholic Shakespeare for England to return to communion with the church of Rome, which dramatizes to the positive impacts that the Roman Catholic Church had on English society and pointing towards a synthesis of Roman and British virtues and an accommodation that benefits both parties. Shakespeare writes this allegory in terms of ethnicity and honor, and considering Shakespeare’s vision of honorable victory and the resulting honorable submission reflects on how to navigate the dangers of our own times.
As background to the historical moment, most of you I’m sure are aware of the English Reformation and the basic circumstances surrounding it. Around 1530 the process of breaking the Church of England from papal authority towards Monarchical supremacy began, and ratcheted up its Protestantism over time. Many historians speak of a “Long Reformation” that stretched well into the 17th century, with the distance from Catholicism growing and waining over time. Shakespeare’s own lifetime would have begun just 30 years removed from the break with Rome, during the reign of Mary Tudor who reintroduced Catholicism, while his career largely fell within the reign of Elizabeth I who returned to Protestantism. William would have been 24 years old at the time of Spanish Armada, the great roll of the dice at which the Elizabethan reformation, and even English independence, could have failed and been consigned to the ash heap of history next to the Cathars and the Burgundians. Next to the Blitz, the Armada is arguably the greatest and most heroic moment of British History. For the audience at the likely premier of Cymbeline in 1611, the Armada was about as far back as 9/11 is for us; a very relevant and present part of history.
The Political plot of Cymbeline follows a fictionalized version of Britain’s gradual accession to Rome. Within the play, set during the reign of Caesar Augustus, King Cymbeline had fought an inconclusive war against the Romans (during which Leonatus’ father and Belarius served valiantly) signed a treaty with Julius Caesar wherein Britain would remain independent but pay tribute. Under the influence of the unnamed wicked Queen and her son Cloten (his stepson), Cymbeline has declared that the treaty was only in force during Julius Caesar’s life and ceased paying tribute to Rome, treating a Roman ambassador roughly despite the threat of war. Various romantic and comedic shenanigans ensue, and when the Roman’s invade only the timely and heroic arrival of Leonatus, Belisarius, and Cymbeline’s lost sons leads to a British victory over the Roman invasion force. After Cymbeline’s victory is assured and his happiness restored by the successful marriage of his daughter and the restoration of his heirs, he magnanimously declares that Britain will resume paying tribute and end the war with Rome, reconciling with the Roman leadership.
Linguistically, an analysis of the names tells us what the characters are meant to symbolize. Some names are clearly British in origin: Cymbeline, Imogen, Cloten. Then on the other hand we have Roman/Latinate names for characters in England: Leonatus Posthumus, Belarius who guards the two heirs Guiderius and Arvirargus. Then we have Giacomo, who is quite obviously Italian but not Roman, a Florentine or Venetian rather than a Classical Roman.*
Cymbeline, King of Britain, has rejected the heroic line of Roman-Britains (Belarius, Leonatus) under the influence of a native British-Welsh queen. Belarius takes the Roman-British heirs to the throne and hides them, instructs them in Roman-British virtue, rather than the brainlessness of the Celtic Cloten. Leonatus, the Roman-Britain, wishes to marry Imogen who represents the British people in her mix of virginal virtue and plucky courage, they are prevented by the king who wishes to marry her to Cloten. In the battle against the Roman invasion, the Roman-Britains pitch in and win the battle, but afterward the King chooses peace. British honor has been satisfied by the victory, there is no need to continue the war over mere money tribute. The British, especially the Roman British, have proven themselves worthy of equality with Rome, and an accommodation can be found.
The historical parallels with the Reformation are obvious. The message of the play is a Catholic Shakespeare, nudging the audience, hey we beat the Armada, we proved our point, time to come home to Rome. There is a belief within the play that war is brutal, war is death, but war is also purifying, war is healing, war reveals truths. War reveals the true natures of the hidden heirs, the threat of death reveals truths about the hidden Imogen and the lying Giacomo. In the clear light of war, after the lucky victory in the battle, Cymbeline sees that he cannot win the war, that Rome is bigger and more powerful and will not quit, and makes peace. The Armada revealed how powerful Britain was, but it was at the end of the day lucky, the stratagems and weather than combined to deliver Britain would not be repeated. The continental powers would return, it was better to rejoin the Catholic Church.
This ideal of personal leadership, and concomitant personal (for the ruler) and national (for the ruler and the ruled) honor is missing from today’s wars, both the physical and the cultural. We live in an era of total war, of mob war. Zhou Enlai said that the French Revolution has not yet ended**, we still live in the era we have inherited from it, SA says we all live in America, in many ways we all still live in Paris in the 1790s. It strikes as instantly morally repugnant for the warring sides to make peace after battle, if you were going to resume tribute why start the war? But in a global period, rather than a momentary utilitarian analysis, a system in which a people can exercise and demonstrate their power, and then be satisfied with their demonstration and resume peace, is preferable to one where the end of any conflict must be the extermination of one power or the other. At the end of Cymbeline (most of) the Romans and (most of) the Britons are still there, still alive, still in power.
Most CW conflicts are, at core, about power. “Mis"gendering is, at core, meaningless. Who says Nigger and who doesn’t is at core meaningless. Drawing a cartoon of Mohammed is at core meaningless. Whether one kneels after a High School football game, or kneels before a professional one, is at core meaningless. These acts, and their negations, are imbued with meaning because they are exercises of power, and to enforce them or to recognize them is to demonstrate and acknowledge power. All these efforts at exercising power, by groups that want to demonstrate their power, form the core of the CW. Why did White ethnics experience Trump’s victory as their own victory, despite his objectively doing almost nothing for them? Because it was a demonstration of white power, in the literal sense. Why do Black or trans advocates insist on enforcing absurd speech codes? Because they are a demonstration of their power.
1/2
Doesn't make sense. First off, Cymbeline is a fictional character. The actual kings of the era were declaring wars and causing schisms for the pettiest of reasons.
Secondly, assuming this play really is about the english reformation like you say: It’s obviously stupid to declare war and then agree to the same terms as before. We know it’s stupid, the people then knew it.
The play is just Shakespeare trying to retcon history, 4D chess style, against opponents who would rightly point out that that ship – recatholization- had sailed, and was sunk by storms and the royal navy.
In Shake’s telling, the english were only pretending to be retarded. The pope and the rest of christendom would only respect them more for stacking injury upon insult. As we know, once the bloody point was made, the english were welcomed back into the fold, more admired than before.
History has determin’d that the guy was bullshiting.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link