Princeton, the Anscombe Society, and the Culture Wars
A very sad event for all of us who went to Princeton.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=930
The young man from the Anscombe Society made the whole thing up.
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2007/12/14/news/19743.shtml
My question: Leaving aside the particular situation of this young man, who may very well be disturbed, and this particular situation, which may well have features we don’t yet know about, we might profitably ask a broader question:
Does framing one’s debates and disagreements with fellow members of one’s community as a “culture war” heighten people’s expectation of physical conflict among the disputants, or contribute to some (disturbed) people’s willingness to engage in it?
Does the “war” metaphor change what we expect from one another? If A really believes B is a minion of the culture of death, why wouldn’t A expect B to harm him/her? How thick is the line between wars of words and actual violence?
Isn’t there a better way to describe our disagreements?
It is a disturbing story, and yet one that does have the ring of the familiar.
You raise intriguing points, Cathy, and two thoughts come to mind. One is that in this cultural warfare, there are no bodies left on the battlefielfield, no real way to count up the cost, to see who has won or who has lost. It is the true Long War. At most, victory is measured by one’s moral superiority. And that can only be demonstrated–to the skeptical public–by the denigration of one’s foes. So if you show that your foes are willing to go to such base lengths as physically attacking you (or any related sin), you win by default. Hence the dirty tricks that the moralists of both sides excel at. Also, I think that there is such a deep frustration among the truly committed culture warriors that no one can see how RIGHT they are, that no one can appreciate how much they suffer, that they pull a “Fight Club” and have to find a way to physically demonstrate their inner anguish. Kind of a perverse, post-modern stigmata.
And that goes to my other thought (in this gaseous response!), and that is, more simply, that so many culture warriors revel in the persecution complex. They would love nothing more than to be a martyr–but of course without suffering so much injury that they cannot enjoy the pleasurable feeling that victimhood confers. Again, ths goes for both sides.
Princeton alumnus Josh Marshall took up the Nava story today:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061247.php
According to the Daily Princetonian, George collaborated with Anderson on his First Things story. That’s journalistically unusual.
I’m not so sure Anscombe Society members should be patting themselves on the back for “exposing” the hoax. For one thing, it actually started last month, when Nava sent himself and his friends death threats. There’s also the matter of the Anscombe member who penned an op-ed decrying the enemies of Anscombe for their threats. Apparently Nava had to go as far as one can go in acting out a persecution complex for any flags to be raised among Anscombe members. As Marshall points out, however, the whole story never should have passed the smell test. Princeton-student premarital-sex advocates sending crassly worded death threats to their peers? An attacker with blond hair, blue eyes, and in a stocking cap (a transparent one?)? All the journos who ran with this story as fast as they could owe their readers an apology.
That does not surprise me. To me at least, Mr. Anderson’s story reads like an attempt at preemptive spin control.
Apparently, he faked the injuries to draw attention to the cause.
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2007/12/14/news/19744.shtml
“We’re 51 per cent sure he’s telling the truth.” Rigorous standards of evidence they must have there at the Anscombe Society.
I think culture war rhetoric begets nastiness and craziness, and attracts nastiness and craziness. How could it not?
It’s in the NYT today.
What bothers me most about this is the abuse of the memory of Elizabeth Anscombe. Yes, Anscombe certainly ascribed to the views on sexuality that this group espouses, but that was only one part of her thought. Remember, Anscombe was the woman who denounced Harry Truman as a war criminal and organized a public protest against awarding him an hononary degree at Oxford. Ascombe was the one who coined the term “consequentialism”– the reasoning employed by the defenders of torture today. How can you possibly form an “Anscombe Society” and say nothing about consequentialism? To me, this is everything that is wrong with the US right in microcosm. By the way, Anscombe was a traditional conservative, and had no time whatsoever for the mixture of laissez-faire capitalism and aggressive nationalism that goes by the name “conservative” in America today. To use her memory as a pawn in this “culture war” is appalling.
What is it with Princeton? A few years ago, we had McCloskey poisoning the campus atmosphere, and how this?
Yes it’s extremely hard to watch. The Anscombe Society isn’t Catholic per se, but it has a lot of Catholic participation, as far as I can see. Here is Tim Reidy’s article about Catholicism on campus–Princeton’s campus from 2006 –I think you start to see a pattern.
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=1587
The problem with “culture war” as a metaphor is that it sets up a win-lose expectation – if you’re my enemy, the way I win is if you lose.
We Christians are supposed to be in the conversion business, aren’t we? Aren’t we supposed to be about changing hearts, not killing opponents?
I don’t want to distract from the main theme of the thread, but a point of clarification may be helpful about the situation at Princeton. I spent last year in Princeton (the town) at the Center of Theological Inquiry, and so was able to participate regularly in the life of the Aquinas Center, the Catholic campus ministry center. Although the atmosphere there tends towards the ‘safe’ and ‘reliable,’ as Tim Reidy rightly pointed out in his CMWL article, the head chaplain is a very pastoral and gregarious pastor who is far from being a cultural warrior. I never heard a single homily (out of over a hundred daily and Sunday Masses) from him or the other chaplains (including an Opus Dei priest) that addressed the culture wars or took a strident stance. Abortion was mentioned only a few times, and always in a constructive, non “culture of death” manner. Homosexuality and same-sex marriage, to cite other contentious issues, were never mentioned at any Mass or gathering I attended. The emphasis was on transforming the world through the witness of one’s professional and personal life.
I was impressed by the Catholic students I met at the university. Yes, some definitely espouse ‘neoconservative’ positions that would not find favor among many CMWL readers (or with which I would always agree), but they were a very diverse lot–racially, culturally, politically–and are seeking to deepen their faith at a time when it is very easy to let that faith go for any number of reasons. They could use a fuller exposure to the breadth of Catholic life and thought, but they are, in my opinion, a source of hope. Two Catholic Rhodes Scholars in two years is nothing to sneeze at, and gives evidence of the thoughtfulness and civility present at the campus ministry.
I know that the McCloskey cloud hangs over any discussion of Catholicism at Princeton, but I don’t think that there is much connection to this matter. He has been gone for a while, Opus Dei is much more open than in the past, and the Anscombe Society matter seems to be the work of a disturbed student with a bad history rather than a reflection on its other leaders or members.
Thanks, Chris.
I personally don’t doubt that this was a disturbed student — but I do think we need to go deeper. Whenever something like this happens, you can treat it as an isolated incident, or you can use it as an occasion for further reflection.
The Anscombe Society seems very much in the “culture war” mode. I think we need to ask whether that language–on both sides of the divide–encourages both 1) fear of what the “enemy” will do; and 2) an attitude of we need to do whatever it takes to win.
So what I would you is this: What does thinking of those who disagree with you as “the culture of death” do to your expectations of them, and how you expect them to treat you? What does thinking of yourself as engaged in a “war” do to your understanding of how you should act?
I think the war metaphor is used because one side truly does desire to “conquer” the habits and thinking of the other side. They aren’t seeking tolerance. They have that. No one was seeking expulsion of the members of the Anscombe Society because they haven’t had sex yet. In that sense, the war metaphor is apt. I assume that the manufactured death threats were intended to make it look, in fact, like the other side was also “engaged” in combat when, in fact, it seems mostly to be indifferent to the hypothetical battle being waged in its midst. This person might require help, and if I were Princeton I would seriously consider asking him to transfer so he can get it somewhere else.
Dear Cathy,
Although my post intentionally avoided the main thrust of this thread–the culture wars–I’d say simply that I’ve never used terms like “culture of death” myself, because that Manichean rhetoric engenders predictable responses, as you suggest.
At the 2001 CTSA convention in Milwaukee, Bob Imbelli organized a panel on “Mission in the United States.” One of the speakers was Paul Baumann. The other was Cardinal George, who said that he never uses the word, “countercultural.” The Church, he said, is never simply opposed to a given culture, but must always love it and listen to it and engage it (I won’t enter into the love/truth discussion of another thread). The Church is always “cultural,” even when it discerns the need to criticize or resist aspects of a given culture. A Church that builds St. Peter’s Basilica, with all of its checkered history, couldn’t be otherwise.
To borrow John O’Malley’s typology, I am a Culture Three person–humanistic more than dialectical, synthetic more than analytical–and so my sympathies lay primarily in seeking common ground. And, as a teacher, I work in Culture Two and so appreciate and practice analysis. There are times, however, when the prophecy of Culture One is needed and unavoidable if the church is to be faithful to its love for the world; prophecy requires discernment, but it cannot be ruled out, even in the public sphere. George Orwell, for one, reminds us of the need for honest, plain speech–speech that may rightly cause division and conflict. Jesus does so, too. I can’t say a priori when prophecy is needed or not, but there must be a place for it–even if it runs counter to a particular individual’s or group’s temperament.
I believe that these three cultures all find their fulfillment in the creativity and worship of Culture Four, but that is a subject for another time–preferably after exams and grading!
Hello Morning’s Minion (and All),
While I agree wholeheartedly with your reasons for being concerned about the use of Anscombe’s name, I wonder if the name choice “Anscombe Society” is motivated by more than Anscombe’s views on sexuality. Anscombe was one of the two philosophers who spearheaded the 20th century thesis that liberal societies have suffered a moral catastrophe because they have accepted the modern moral philosophies that started to appear in the 16th century. (Alasdair MacIntyre is the other.) I wonder if it could be Anscombe’s favor of the older moral philosophies of firgures such as Aristotle and Aquinas and her antipathy towards modern moral philosophy that led to the choice of the name “Anscombe Society”? But perhaps Christopher knows more about this.
The website suggests it’s pretty much about her positions on sexual ethics, not her position on Aristotle.
http://www.princeton.edu/~anscombe/
The Anscombe Society is a student organization dedicated to affirming the importance of the family, marriage, and a proper understanding for the role of sex and sexuality. We aim to promote an environment that values the crucial role the intact, stable family plays in sustaining society; the definition of marriage as the exclusive, monogamous union of a man and a woman; its role as an institution which is necessary for the healthy family, and thus for a healthy society; a conception of feminism that encourages motherhood; and a chaste lifestyle which respects and appreciates human sexuality, relationships, and dignity. Therefore, we celebrate sex as unifying, beautiful, and joyful when shared in its proper context: that of marriage between a man and woman. The Anscombe Society is a proactive community that provides social support and a voice for those already committed to these values, and promotes intellectual engagement to further discussion and understanding of this ethic on Princeton’s campus and in the broader community.
Why Anscombe?
Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret (G.E.M., or Elizabeth) Anscombe (1919-2001), a student and literary executor of Wittgenstein, was a British analytic philosopher — according to some, the 20th century’s greatest. Her 1957 book Intention, on the role of reasoning in human action, has become a modern classic; her penetrating analysis of traditional sexual ethics in a 1977 essay “Contraception and Chastity” displays the rigor of her moral reasoning and the vigor of her defense of family values. A highly regarded Cambridge professor, wife, and mother of seven, she was chosen as our namesake for her unabashed dedication to the life of the mind and to marriage and family in her life and work
The speakers they bring in are pretty much hard core culture warriors.
I don’t “culture war” in these paragraphs. Is it in other literature from the group?
Hello Cathleen (and All),
Thank you for clearing me up. This just goes to show how philosophers so frequently overlook the obvious. Why didn’t I think of just visiting the web site?
I have to confess I don’t think very highly of the philosophical writings of Anscombe I’ve studied. (On the other hand, I greatly admire Alasdair MacIntyre’s work, even though I so frequently disagree with him.) I wonder just who thinks Anscombe is the 20th century’s greatest British analytic philosopher. None of the professional philosophers I know personally regard her even as a major figure of 20th century philosophy.
Joe, my judgment is based on the speakers they’ve brought in, who are well known participants in the culture wars (not all–one guy is a chastity apologist for Catholic Answers–you can make your own mind up about them.)
Here are a few websites which link those speakers to the words “culture war” or “culture of death.” . You can google as well as I can to find more–Professor George has a paper called Paganism and the Culture of Death which looks quite bracing.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0034-6705(200124)63%3A1%3C159%3ABTIAWO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1 –Bud.
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4009
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1422495/posts–Maggie Gallagher cited by Chuck Colson
http://www.uexpress.com/maggiegallagher/index.html?uc_full_date=20070313
http://www.nationalreview.com/books/carlson200410151350.asp
By the way, here’s a link to Anscombe on Contraception and Chastity: As Bob would say, tolle et lege:
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/AnscombeChastity.shtml
http://www.cavehill.uwi.edu/bnccde/ph19b/conchastity.html
For the same essay, plus reply and surreply.
Thanks, Barbara.