Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5
Enjoyability: 5 of 5
I've enjoyed every book by Chesterton that I've ever read. He's a very clever, insightful and humorous writer, but this one was especially good. In it, Chesterton addresses many big problems in the world of his time (and even more so, the world of today,) and comes to some very jarring conclusions about them.
As with every writer worth reading, Chesterton utterly challenges the false assumptions that the world bases its whole system of belief on; even assumptions about things like public education, voting and soap, and also like with every writer worth reading, he backs up his claims with logical analogies and evidence, which help to support his views. I wouldn't dream of robbing you of the delight of reading these things for yourself, of course, so here's your chance to stop reading this review. I'll spend the rest of it talking about some of the points he made.
Chesterton's first several points in this book are to point out that man has gone wrong in quite a number of ways, and made quite a number of false assumptions to prevent himself from going right again. People make the mistake of thinking that the societies of the past failed because they were flawed in some way that we aren't. People make choices on the basis of what they -dislike,- rather than on the basis of what's better. People make the mistake of regarding the past with fear and distrust in general, and of assuming that only the future can offer them anything worth having; that there was nothing about the past that's worth restoring. All of these assumptions are purely destructive, since they block a person off to an avenue of good ideas and good solutions, which would otherwise be available to them.
People make the mistake of prizing optimism over success; a happy outlook over a happy life. They make the mistake of allowing whole groups of people, making opposite mistakes, to guide them in one false direction or another, never once suspecting that both might be wrong in certain ways, or if they suspect, unable to really do anything about it. The early parts of the book are a real eye-opener.
Chesterton then challenges imperialism and the way wicked public changes are spread; through claiming that it's necessary. Never once, he says, are these evil changes enacted because people really want them enacted. They're enacted because people are convinced that they're needed, whether they're wanted or not. However, Chesterton's point is pretty clear; they are, in truth, not needed at all; certainly not among everyday people who are just trying to live their lives and put food on the table. Every major radical political agenda of a left-leaning slant in the modern world can be put neatly in this category.
Next, Chesterton turns his guns on feminism. This is probably the most controversial part of the book, which may explain why I loved it so much. Basically, he points out that men are not women, nor are women men, and that they have different natural inclinations and ways of thinking, which makes men better at some things, and women at others. Like all the best people who address this issue, he doesn't get distracted by the feminist lines about "equality." Indeed, women are equal to men, in their innate worth, their human rights, etc, but this does not make them the same as men, nor should it need to. Men and women can compliment one another within society, each having a different role, and neither needing to infringe on the other. It's not necessary, or helpful, to just mix everyone into the same pot, like we do in modern society.
Perhaps the most controversial part of this section is in Chesterton's dismissal of women's suffrage, which he defends, not by repudiating women, as feminists might have one believe, but by repudiating votes. In a sense, I agree with him. Voting is a grave responsibility with many dark aspects to it, and there are distinct drawbacks to it, as a system of government. For one thing, in a monarchy, or some other such society, even if an evil tyrant takes over, you don't need to look suspiciously at most of your fellow citizens. It probably wasn't their fault. Not so in a democracy. In a democracy, when an evil tyrant takes over (and it always happens eventually, as it now has to America,) you have to wake up the next morning and go to work, knowing full well that over half of your fellow citizens are either voting in ignorance, are negligent of their duties, or are evil themselves.
Then too, if an evil tyrant wants to seize power over a democracy, he can't just march his army in and take command. He has to go through the long, slow process of gradually corrupting the hearts and/or dulling the minds of over half its citizens, so that they become evil or ignorant enough to accept him. When all is said and done, I think that more souls are lost under an evil democracy than under and evil dictatorship. By no means am I saying that democracies are inferior to monarchies, or anything like that. What I am saying is that voting is not the clean and guiltless process we often make it out to be. These aren't the points that Chesterton brings up against voting, but it's what I got to thinking about as a result of this book.
The next group of big issues dealt with in this book are education; specifically, public education of children, and how it rises from another false assumption; that because rich people allow their children to be taught by someone else, so should everyone else. In short, that not only -can- parents escape from the task of teaching their children, but they -should.- He explains why this is utter nonsense; what great benefits the child gains in learning from their own parents, and others who share their way of life, instead of suffering under the "merciful gifts" of the richer classes.
I should point out that with the state of public schools in America today (basically a form of child abuse,) these objections are even -more- poignant and -more- important. In fact, really, all the objections in this book stand out much clearer and more correct than ever, but none more so than his last big observation on the world.
The problem is that man is viewing his society/social constructs as immutable, and his neighbor as flexible, when it should be the other way around. People are trying to shape man to fit into a vision of society, rather than forming their vision of society around man. This is what's really wrong with the world, according to G. K. Chesterton.
I couldn't agree with him more.
No comments:
Post a Comment