Figuring out this place called home is a problem (87). Why? Why is it so problematic to figure out this place we call home: Canada? Consider this question in context with Chamberlin’s discussion on imagination and reality; belief and truth (use the index).Chamberlin says, “the sad fact is, the history of settlement around the world is the history of displacing other people from their lands, of discounting their livelihoods and destroying their languages” (78). Chamberlin goes on to “put this differently” (Para. 3). Explain that “different way” of looking at this, and discuss what you think of the differences and possible consequences of these “two ways” of understanding the history of settlement in Canada
“I talked about the false choice that is so often presented to us, the choice between being marooned on an island and drowning at sea.”(Chamberlain 32)
Several times throughout his book, Chamberlain warns us against cornering ourselves into the unenviable situation quoted above (32, 127, 239). The repetition of this metaphor signals its significance in Chamberlain’s over-arching thesis. Yet, the fun of metaphors is that they are never straight forward but ,rather, demand us to forge our way along the winding path of meaning. The image was easy to conjure in my mind; Floating helplessly in the ocean and grasping tenaciously to a single plank of wood, I come across a a deserted island where I am forced to choose between living stranded and alone or to keep holding on and eventually drowning in the waters. But to truly understand this metaphor, context seemed crucial. In the book, the metaphor consistently appears at times when the author is questioning the distinction between reality and imagination. Chamberlain seemed to be waving a red flag and pointing towards the common trap of false dichotomy (i.e. Good vs. Evil, False vs. Truth, Real vs . imagined, Us and Them). He is highlighting the way these distinctions close our minds and force us into a place of judgment and categorization of “others” and cutting off alternatives for compromise and understanding. Until, in a way, we are left clinging helplessly to a single piece of wood. The tragedy, according to my reading of the metaphor above, is that we needn’t think in these dilemmas (or dichotomies) at all. Humans are capable and even naturally suited to living in contradiction. Stories are the best example of this. Across cultures and across time, myths and stories have occupied a space of paradox that exists between reality and fiction and have allowed for belief and non-belief to live in peaceful co-existence. In light of this perspective, and to attempt an answer part of the above question, the settlement of the Americas , can be understood, not only as an appropriation of land but also the appropriation of reality. The violence of settlement, according to Chamberlain, is found as much in the dismissal of others beliefs as it was of their territorial rights. The settler had tragically convinced themselves that they had to either make a life on the deserted island or drown.
Given this deeper, psychological understanding of colonialism we can also see why the question of ‘figuring out this place we call home’ might be more complicated than land rights, language, and economic retribution. If the European appropriation of Indigenous land also effectuated the dismissal of alternate realities (ways of seeing the world), then our current challenge , especially as non-indigenous Canadians, is to look deeply into our belief systems and recognize the colonization that has and continues to take place at the level of ideas (and the stories that transport them).
In retrospect, it seems easy to fall into the dichotomy trap and judge the settler mindset as , at best misguided, or worst, evil. I believe this will only lead us down another pathway towards narrow choices and tense confrontation. It seems to me that, as Albert Einstein is often quoted as saying “ We cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them”. In this vein, at the end of the book, Chamberlain writes that common ground will be found “when we come together in agreement not about what to believe but about what it is to believe” (240). It seems, therefore, we are being asked to step outside the comfortable zone of divisive dichotomies and rather focus on the paradox of human experience that unites us together. However, it also seems undeniable that something within the colonial narratives that allowed them to be blind to Indigenous worldviews.
If I look at Chamberlain’s challenge through the a personal lens , I immediately think of the role that story has played in my own Jewish culture. Paradox has always occupied a central place in our tradition. On one level it can be experienced in the way we hold multiple (often contradictory) interpretations of our holy texts simultaneously. And , on another level, it can also be found in the way we intellectually assimilate the ‘fact/fiction’ tension that has always been a part of our sacred storytelling . The Baal Shem Tov, founder of the immensely influential Chassidic movement, was famous for inhabiting this space of contradiction. On one hand, some of his stories are so outlandish that the defy any rational thought but ,on the other hand, believing in them is a necessary part of the path to deeper spiritual understandings and connections . For more a taste of what I mean, you can check out The Stories of the Baal Shem Tov here. Unfortunately, in recent times our culture has been struggling , post -holocaust, to retain tradition in the face of rapid assimilation into western culture. Many Jewish leaders view this assimilation as a greater threat to Jewish survival than anti-semitism. Now, this wave of assimilation began quite a while before the second world war and actually finds its roots in a in the 19th century of Eastern Europe when the world was rocked by the “Enlightenment”. While somewhat of a stretch, I believe that the story of Jewish assimilation into enlightenment might shed some light on the “stories” that empowered the colonization of Indigenous land, language, and economic appropriation and , eventually, forced assimilation.
In the last few hundred years, the West has seen a massive shift away from ,what the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche might have called, religious “dogma” towards “enlightened” scientific rationalism. It was over 135 years ago that the famously declared that “G-d is Dead”. Was Nietzsche , albeit in a flamboyant fashion, simply highlighting the European intellectual shift away from the ‘antiquated’ embrace of (religious) myth towards empirically-founded, physical laws (for more information check out ” Nietzsche-God is Dead)? In light of Chamberlain’s book, could we replace the word “G-d” (in Nietzsche’s statement) with the word “Story”? Could the shift Nietzsche was talking about be understood as a movement way from the contradictions of story and towards the truths of scientific worldview where science is seen as Truth and all else as merely “myth”?
I guess, in essence, what I am suggestion (or asking) is whether the Enlightenment movement in the West away from a religiously dictated morality was also a movement away from being able to live with the paradox of story. Nietzsche was highlighting the aspects of religion that restricted personal choice but what also lives within the crevices of religious dogma is the belief in stories of a reality we see and do not “see” simultaneously … something incomprehensible and (at times) threatening to a scientific (enlightened) worldview.
The answer to my question (like any good question) is yes and no. Yes, outwardly, contradiction and irrationality were stripped from the dominant post- Enlightenment narrative. But , also no, because on a deeper level, as Chamberlain discusses, science and mathematics , while hidden behind shrouds of objectivity and fact, are actually stories too which demand belief and acceptance of contradiction. Chamberlain’s metaphor of drowning at sea, might be asking us, first and foremost, to be transparent in the acceptance of our own stories which will lead us to accept (at very least) the legitimacy to the stories of others?
Cited Works
Chamberlin, Edward. If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground. Toronto: AA. Knopf. 2003. Print.
HyperLinks
“The Baal Shem Tov’s Legends.” Breslev.co.il, www.breslev.co.il/articles/breslev/baal_shem_tov_and_students/the_baal_shem_tovs_legends.aspx?id=14923&language=english.
Hendricks, Scotty. “’God Is Dead’: What Nietzsche Really Meant.” Big Think, Big Think, 4 Jan. 2019, bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/what-nietzsche-really-meant-by-god-is-dead.
Image Details
Image is from Unsplash and was published prior to 5 June 2017 under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication
I appreciate the thought-provoking and personal connections you make throughout your blog post. You bring up an array of points that were addressed in the book—the false dichotomies, our notions of reality, believing in contradicting ideas, etc. You discuss these ideas with clarity and insight. To differentiate my comments on other posts and my own post, I would like to focus on the point that you and Chamberlin raise about Nietzsche famously declared that “G-d is Dead.”
The idea that, “In the last few hundred years, the West has seen a massive shift away from religious “dogma” towards “enlightened” scientific rationalism” is a false one. Of course, one of the notions that Chamberlin tries to get at is that things can both be true and untrue. However, I believe that this idea is only beneficial in some situations (situations where we can accept beliefs contrary to our own as long as they don’t hinder a progression towards equality, acceptance, and scientific findings). The flip side of this is the postmodern-like thinking that has impacted the current “post-truth” era where opinions are valued over facts.
I would now like to return towards the idea that the West has become more secular. “It’s tempting to conceive of the religious world—particularly when there is so much talk of clashing civilizations—as being made up primarily of a few well-delineated and static religious blocs: Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and so on. But that’s dangerously simplistic. It assumes stability in the religious landscape that is completely at odds with reality.” (Lester 1). Even though the percentage of affiliations to these religions has declined in the West, NRMs (New Religious Movements) have increased. This includes some of the obvious religions such as Mormonism and Scientology. It also includes smaller religions such as “THE RAËLIANS. A growing new international UFO-oriented movement based in Canada, with perhaps 55,000 members worldwide, primarily in Quebec…” (Lester 4). In the West, new NRMs are increasing, rather than decreasing, and even though some of these religions reject dogmatic principles, many do not agree with scientific rationalism.
It is also important to note that our primary superordinate goal (goals that are proven to reduce prejudice) should be to limit climate change. And many religious dogmas prevent people from taking these steps. However, many religious leaders are starting to realize the importance of recognizing scientific research on climate change. Furthermore, it wasn’t scientific rationalization that has caused conflict in the world, nor did it cause us to live in a world where we don’t recognize the importance of mystical stories. Nobody ever started a war in the name of Atheism. Nor did Atheists and scientists go into the Americas to reject people’s stories and destroy civilizations.
White’s paper mentions that it was the Christian notion of man’s mastery over beast that caused our current disrespect for the planet. He also states that “to a Christian, a tree can be no more than a physical fact. The whole concept of the sacred grove is alien to Christianity and to the ethos of the West. For nearly 2 millennia Christian missionaries have been chopping down sacred groves, which are idolatrous because they assume spirit in nature.” (White 1206). Scientific rationality that is not in conflict with sacred values that respect our planet. Instead, scientific rationality is in conflict with ideas and stories that hinder the progression needed to keep our species living on the planet we love. I understand that Chamberlin might not deny what I am stating and that I am interpreting his words in a way that supports these claims. I only hope to expand the conversation and look at the limitations of Chamberlin’s book.
Lester, T. (2002, February). Oh, Gods! The Atlantic. Retrieved from
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/02/oh-gods/302412/
White, L. (1967). The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science, 155(3767), 1203-1207.
doi:10.1126/science.155.3767.1203
Interesting Nolan. I appreciate the response. I am not exactly sure how to respond since you bring up a lot of provocative ideas all at once. I will try to address a few of your comments in an effort to continue dialogue and conversation on this immensely complex issues.
1- You mention that “New” religions are actually on the rise and you mention the RAELIANS as an example. I have very little knowledge of this type of organization and although they seem to be attracting followers , their belief system remains a definite outlier in the dominant Canadian cultural landscape. TO the vast majority of Canadians, I think that UFO -oriented religions are not a serious consideration or even on (no pun intended) their radar. The point is that in Canada, in our public school system, in our media, and , generally, in our conversations, religion/spiritual/ mythical storytelling is very rarely brought up. ANd, even if they are , it is through an objective, intellectual lens.
A shift definitely took place during the enlightenment. It might not have been absolute and completely unforgiving but it took place. It also might have represented a trend occuring over hundreds of years, that was taking place in Europe that was “opening the eyes” of the general population to alternative ways of seeing the world (beyond religious ideology). However, my point was not to engage in a historical inquiry but rather to look at the obvious epistemological differences between the evolution of euro-canadian and indigenous – canadian cultures.
2- climate change is the primary goal and religious leaders are blocking progress.
I think what you bring up here speaks to the power of narratives. Religious, scientific, historical narratives have enormous impact on shaping the actions of those who live by them. My point, and I believe Chamberlain’s too, about the scientific rationalism is that it seems to be the blindspot of science to the inherent paradox its own narrative. While postmodernity is a definite force in the humanities, my experience is that the mathematic and scientific ways of seeing the world goes pre-dominantly unquestioned in our society. OR far too infrequently unquestioned. I am asking for a certain humility and self awareness of the paradox/contradictions/ limitations that exists in our most closely held beliefs. I think it might be fair to demand this equally of religious leaders/believers as well.
Thanks for you thought Laen! You’ve provided some sharp articulations of some elusive issues.
A question I keep bumping up against with all this talk of imagination, story, and what seems to me as talk of useful fictions, is the notions of truth and truthfulness. Is Chamberlin advocating a kind of truth relativism? Does he remove himself from the conversation of whether a given belief, or a belief system reflects reality rather than wish-thinking, falsity, delusion, ect?
I get the pragmatic benefits of accepting imaginings and stories as useful, and even valuable. However, I can’t help but holding on to my value of aligning my beliefs to truths rather than wants. One truth that seems self-evident is that two mutually opposing propositions cannot simultaneously be true.
On aside, when Nietzsche said “God is dead” he was referring to the Christian foundation to morality as being killed by a scientifically and truth based understanding of morality. Religious morality is both pernicious and delusory. He wasn’t a big fan of religion or the current freedom depleting conceptions of morality.
hey Ryan. thanks for engaging.
You bring up a lot of very good points.
To respond to your first comment, I think that Chamberlain is not challenging the belief in reality but rather suggesting the reality might, in part, be a reflection of our beliefs. The stories that shape dominant our upbringing and worldview determine how our minds interpret a situation or relate to an object. Often times, these worldviews are so different that to one, the other side’s perspective can seem delusional or psychotic. The example Chamberlain focuses on is belief in story. In the modern, western world story and truth and very well differentiated and compartmentalized but in other cultures this is not true. In these other worldviews, empirically based truth might assume a lower status than the moral/spiritual/psychological truths that are implicated in the stories. This obviously is deeply challenging to our fact based worldview and one that some of us might never overcome.
The idea that you cannot accept the idea of two contradicting propositions being true is completely understandable. I am often challenged by this myself. As a modern ,academic, religious Jew I have to reconcile enormous empirical evidence of evolution with an absolute belief in the Torah’s narrative of a six-day creation. There are rational ways to intellectually reconcile these contradictions but , ultimately, I have learned to live in the space of paradox. I accept the limitations of my own mind while, simultaneously, embracing the tremendous creativity and expansion possible within that limitation. Science is very useful but it does not have all the answers or a monopoly on truth. At least, that’s what I believe.
Lastly, I challenge your assertion that religious morality is pernicious and delusory. The basic moralities that our society holds dear are primarily an outgrowth of religious belief, When Hitler wanted to kill the Jews one of his reasoning was that they brought “conscience” into the world. I believe that Hitler saw the Jews as limiting personal freedom by bringing in this nonsense of moral obligations beyond personal interest and advancement. I believe that Nietzsche was articulating a shift away from submission to an outside higher authority , and a movement towards personal freedom of choice. However, what is not accounted for is the enormous unconscious impression that religious narrative have already made. For once you tell a story, it is not so easy to take it away.
Thankfully, because without these deep moral values , I believe we would be much further along the path to ecological and social destruction than we are now.
peace