I was thinking about how mythological tales, e.g. Bible stories, may remain relevant, even after they have become in some respects – if taken literally – ridiculous (e.g. the The Fall, or The Flood).
This all got me thinking of many things. One of which was the concept of reverence. Looking at the etymology of the word, we may find this:
I find it interesting how, for a lot of folk these days, the concept of reverence has morphed from fear to love! ‘Re-Vere‘, or intense fear, leads to ‘respect’, and that, eventually, becomes love!
As bonkers as that might seem written down, and with the evolution of the meaning compressed into a few seconds, it kind of makes sense.
The why of this linguistic evolution tying in with why Christianity (and other modern monotheisms) have evolved into what they are now, suiting so well, as they do, adoption and usage by individual power figures, such as Emperors, Kings, and so on.
The lesson that we must fear the powers of Nature is thus transferred to the fear of powerful men (or women!). And over time that initial naked fear can evolve – especially when sedulously cultivated – into love. It’s almost like an ancient or primitive Stockholm Syndrome: to placate what you fear you start loving it.
Witness the abominable forelock-tugging love and respect for ‘our’ (not mine!) so called Royal Family. I always used to. S massively irked by the naked sycophancy on display in big old stately homes. But of course, what could be more natural than costing up with the biggest bullies around?
All of this thought was triggered by a thought along the lines of ‘just because something is revered by many [I was thinking of The Bible], doesn’t make it inherently worthy, in any way’, or something like that.
I can’t recall exactly how all of the above eventually lead me to Roger Scruton (I think it was something about aesthetics and architecture, which came out of looking for a comical depiction of Charlie*, our current ‘King’), but it did.
*To illustrate the hypocrisy of a tax evading megabucks ‘royal’, pontificating on charity for the homeless, in one of his panacea stuffed with looted gewgaws.
I shall have to learn more about Scruton. Reading his wiki page has been interesting. I have a deep-rooted and abiding hatred of Tories and Toryism – what I call neo-liberalist disaster-crapitalism – and yet like Scruton, I really don’t like the middle-class hooliganism one sometimes encounters on the so-called left.
For Scruton it was witnessing the Paris ‘68 riots. For me – amongst many other things – I could say it was witnessing yobbish destructive behaviour during the Reclaim The Streets protests, in London, c. early ‘90s. That, and similar experiences elsewhere, really soured me on what one might term neo-Marxist ‘direct action’.
But all of these things I’m touching upon here, are of course massively complex. By which I might mean, for example, that in Paris ‘68 and London in the ‘90s, most protestors were actually very peaceful. So the small hooligan element besmirched a bigger, better ‘other’. But this post isn’t the place I’m going to unpack and explore such nuances or complexities.
Suffice it to say that, whilst I’ve obviously encountered Scruton before (and, if I recall correctly, taking something of a dislike to him for his obvious conservatism), this is the first time he’s really registered on my radar. And I do think I’d like to learn more about him and his thinking.
That’s something for another time and place, however.