Oh, Canada - Chapter 8 - Dancing and Dining
“Where appetite seizes the reins of the soul of the city, it drives the chariot toward ruin; so it is the very art of good governance to seek to perfect the intricate and delicate choreography of moral and legal custom that will best promote the sway of reverent reason in city and soul alike.” David B. Hart
The image of the art of good governance as likened to the role of choreographer is helpful to me. The choreographer seeks to fuse the rhythm of the music with the movements of the dancers, the successful union being a pleasing experience for the participants and the observers alike. If appetite seizes any one of the choreographer, the musician or the dancer – by appetite I mean the self centred desire to satisfy one’s own needs, without concern for those of others – the result will rarely be pleasing.
From this observer’s perspective what is being played out on the Canadian dance floor resembles a St. Vitas dance and the governing committee of choreographers whether political, cultural, academic, journalistic or even religious have badly lost their syncopation. I fear the majority of Canadians have chosen to stand in the shadows and observe with a mixture of sadness, bemusement and anger at this perplexing display.
Moving to the second metaphor in my epigram, it seems we live in a society and a culture where appetite has indeed “seized the reins” as David Hart puts it. It is an insatiable appetite for the freedom to exercise limitless choice and uninhibited self expression. This triumph of the appetite has dulled our collective palate such that those who now question the wisdom of some of the entrees on the menu of choice and self expression are variously labeled as unimaginative (tastes are always evolving), patronizing (how dare you tell me how to satisfy my appetite), or sanctimonious (what makes your taste superior to mine).
The label is usually the first and often the only response from the one about to sample the latest freedom delicacy. Little attempt is made to examine the reasoning behind the cautionary advice to give a sober second thought before biting into the flavour du jour - this despite evidence that the new meal might well make you sick. So what if it makes me sick says the prospective nibbler, nobody says you have to eat this new concoction, so why do you care? Well, believe it or not I care because I care about you, and I care about what my community and country will look like if I am right and you and the fellow gourmands indeed come down with a serious ailment. There will be a lot of remedial and palliative work to be done.
There are many signs that Canada today is in a state of anomie, a word first used by French philosopher Emile Durkheim to diagnose the state of modern rootlessness he observed in late 19th and early 20th century France. Anomie is defined as social instability resulting from a breakdown of standards and values; also : personal unrest, alienation, and uncertainty that comes from a lack of purpose or ideals.
Anomie may well be what Hart describes as the “ultimate consequence of a purely libertarian political ethos (which) if taken to its logical end, would be a world in which we would no longer even remember why we should want to choose good, as we would have learned to deem things good solely because they have been chosen”.
It seems I have offended some friends with my insistence that the purpose of all my essays is to encourage people to think more carefully and intently about some of the social issues we currently face in Canada. They bristle at the suggestion they have not thought about these issues, or that if they have thought about them and still disagree with me, they perceive it arrogant of me to continue my efforts to convince them they are mistaken.
To this I can only say I find much wisdom in Orestes Brownson’s words: “Nothing is more nauseating than lukewarm. Give us, we say, open, energetic uncompromising enemies, or firm, staunch friends, who will take their stand for the truth, to live with it or die with it, and not your half and half men.”
The image of the art of good governance as likened to the role of choreographer is helpful to me. The choreographer seeks to fuse the rhythm of the music with the movements of the dancers, the successful union being a pleasing experience for the participants and the observers alike. If appetite seizes any one of the choreographer, the musician or the dancer – by appetite I mean the self centred desire to satisfy one’s own needs, without concern for those of others – the result will rarely be pleasing.
From this observer’s perspective what is being played out on the Canadian dance floor resembles a St. Vitas dance and the governing committee of choreographers whether political, cultural, academic, journalistic or even religious have badly lost their syncopation. I fear the majority of Canadians have chosen to stand in the shadows and observe with a mixture of sadness, bemusement and anger at this perplexing display.
Moving to the second metaphor in my epigram, it seems we live in a society and a culture where appetite has indeed “seized the reins” as David Hart puts it. It is an insatiable appetite for the freedom to exercise limitless choice and uninhibited self expression. This triumph of the appetite has dulled our collective palate such that those who now question the wisdom of some of the entrees on the menu of choice and self expression are variously labeled as unimaginative (tastes are always evolving), patronizing (how dare you tell me how to satisfy my appetite), or sanctimonious (what makes your taste superior to mine).
The label is usually the first and often the only response from the one about to sample the latest freedom delicacy. Little attempt is made to examine the reasoning behind the cautionary advice to give a sober second thought before biting into the flavour du jour - this despite evidence that the new meal might well make you sick. So what if it makes me sick says the prospective nibbler, nobody says you have to eat this new concoction, so why do you care? Well, believe it or not I care because I care about you, and I care about what my community and country will look like if I am right and you and the fellow gourmands indeed come down with a serious ailment. There will be a lot of remedial and palliative work to be done.
There are many signs that Canada today is in a state of anomie, a word first used by French philosopher Emile Durkheim to diagnose the state of modern rootlessness he observed in late 19th and early 20th century France. Anomie is defined as social instability resulting from a breakdown of standards and values; also : personal unrest, alienation, and uncertainty that comes from a lack of purpose or ideals.
Anomie may well be what Hart describes as the “ultimate consequence of a purely libertarian political ethos (which) if taken to its logical end, would be a world in which we would no longer even remember why we should want to choose good, as we would have learned to deem things good solely because they have been chosen”.
It seems I have offended some friends with my insistence that the purpose of all my essays is to encourage people to think more carefully and intently about some of the social issues we currently face in Canada. They bristle at the suggestion they have not thought about these issues, or that if they have thought about them and still disagree with me, they perceive it arrogant of me to continue my efforts to convince them they are mistaken.
To this I can only say I find much wisdom in Orestes Brownson’s words: “Nothing is more nauseating than lukewarm. Give us, we say, open, energetic uncompromising enemies, or firm, staunch friends, who will take their stand for the truth, to live with it or die with it, and not your half and half men.”
posted by Ben Buan | 1:18 p.m.
<< Home