|
Response to "Classical Drama and Americans," by Harley Schlanger. by Elena Fe Walker
The Schiller Institute http://www.schillerinstitute.org/
Schiller Institute/ICLC Conference Defeat The Brute Within September 2, 2001
The Way to Master Fate.
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/conf-iclc/2001/Labor%20Day/conf_sep_2001_hcs_.html
Firstly, I believe it's important to note that I am not American. As an Australian, I was unfamiliar with The Schiller Institute and it's views until Robert Beltran mentioned it's magazine "Fidelio" at an appearance. I do not have the knowledge of American politics or culture to be able to comment specifically about many of the Institute's conclusions, as specified on their web site. However, I am concerned about and involved with many of the issues discussed by Mr. Schlanger in his conference speech: These are topics and themes that are not limited by international boundaries.
Secondly, I'm going to limit my comments to only answering the core issue raised by Mr. Schlanger; He is the speaker and I am assuming the opinions expressed are his own. I will not be digressing into a wider consideration of the views of Mr. Lyndon LaRouche at this point in time. My focus is on the views and beliefs represented in this particular speech.
To clarify the motive behind Mr. Schlanger' speech, let's consider a statement from the Schiller Institute's web site. From a transcription of the 1984 speech, "Friedrich Schiller: Poet of The American Revolution"
Would Schiller today pass
the same judgment he reached upon witnessing the Jacobin terror of the French
Revolution, that "a great moment has found a little people"?
The difficulty that presents itself when considering Mr. Schlanger's words, is in his interpretation of Schiller's principles and how they relate to modern society. Frederick Schiller wrote:
For only can a great and
noble cause
And as this century is
gravely ending,
And war is waged for man's
most noble causes,
Such is the basis of Mr. Schlanger's contentions: The specific title of his speech is "The Way To Master Fate." He contends:
This is the question of fate, that our fate, or destiny, may seem to be too much for us to handle. But "seeing such conditions on the stage, awakens in the character, and in the viewers of the drama, powers of self-assertion and moral resistance against unjust conditions. Such extraordinary situations demonstrate the true greatness of a person, because those who are only apparently great are crushed by this overwhelming fate.
"But the hero is the person who prescribes to himself a great idea, and does not deviate from it, even under the most adverse circumstances," such as popular rejection, or even death—and some people think popular rejection is worse than death!
"Or the simple citizen who comes to understand that his own action may determine whether the force of fate can be altered."
What Schiller said of this, is that "theater sheds light on man and our destiny, and teaches us the great art of facing it bravely."
The problem with Mr. Schlanger's speech is that he isn't actually addressing the question of why or how America needs classical drama but how classical drama can be used to lift the American people's understanding and culture. Not "...to soar yet higher, Upon the shadow-stage; indeed, she must, Lest she be put to shame by life's own drama" as Schiller contends. But to be "lifted" into the roles determined by Mr. Lyndon LaRouche and his followers. As Mr. Schlanger explains:
I would like to attempt to demonstrate this process. I would like to do it by introducing you to a series of extraordinary plays by William Shakespeare, on the Plantagenet kings of England. Keep in mind, that what I want you to look at, and listen for, is not just to listen to the words, not just to figure out the words, but to understand the mind of the author.
In a recent memo by Lyndon LaRouche on this, he wrote, "The typical head of state"—and perhaps we can add, the typical organizer among us—"takes on more the role of the actor on the stage, than the author of the play. It is those who change or adjust the axioms of the historical process, who determine the outcome of the play."
Don't simply identify with the characters, this is part of the problem in the way people approach drama. Too often, people look at the figure on the stage, and say, "Oh, the poor fellow, he couldn't quite make it, that's the tragedy." No! The tragedy is in the inability to overcome the flaws of the corrupt society, and that no individual in the drama had the capacity, the honesty, the toughness to overcome that corruption. So don't just identify with the characters. Think like the author.
Mr. Schlanger is not contending that his audience should work towards an understanding of Shakespeare and his environment or influences; in order to understand his message better. No, he is contending that the audience should examine what makes it possible to manipulate society. He's saying, don't get caught up with trying to understand the motives of Othello or Shakespeare's intentions: Rather, study the methods and manipulation of Othello by Iago. And make particular note of what methods the dramatist uses to gain his audience's attention in order to manipulate or change their thoughts. Presumably, into those considered to be more acceptable to Mr. Schlanger and his peers. The world needs more effective movers and shakers apparently.
Again, a quote directly from Mr. Schlanger's speech.
Before proceeding further, it is necessary to ponder the question of how one writes historical drama, and portrays the ordering of events. What one finds, in the hands of great dramatists such as Shakespeare and Schiller, is not so-called "objective" history. There have been volumes written disputing Shakespeare's "version" of history, which argue that his chronology was wrong; for example, that in Richard III, he has Richard kill someone who was really killed before Richard was born.
But, there is a truth in dramatic history which is higher than that of so-called objective history. It is a dramatic truth which goes beyond the "facts": It is psychologically true; it provides an insight into how people thought and lived. The great dramatists do that when they present a parade of characters on stage, so that you look at the characters, and see their minds, how they think, as exposed by the dramatist.
By doing this, they are holding up a mirror to the audience, so that you may become conscious of how you think, and how members of your society think. Through this process, of viewing a great Classical drama, you are induced to reflect on your own corruption and degeneration, while, at the same time, you are presented with an alternative, that you could act, if you and everyone else in the audience were moved to act for the good, to live in the simultaneity of eternity—then, perhaps, you could change the course of history, overcoming what seemed to be inescapable fate.
The concern taken up by Shakespeare, in the history plays of the Plantagenets, was to enable his audience to understand the degeneracy, brutality, and corruption of pre-Tudor England. The dramatist is speaking directly to the audience.
Earlier in his speech, Mr. Schlanger explains his reasons for wanting to adopt classical drama as a means for reaching the American people.
Now, again, Lyndon LaRouche has elaborated recently, in several memos, the problem that Schiller faced. How do you lift mankind above the corruption of the society, especially when we don't seem able to reach people in our day-to-day discussion? We, therefore, seem to share a fate in common with the beasts: that we will live and die, with little opportunity to shape our destiny, or that of society, in the limited time we have between birth and death.
It is this fatal pessimism which Schiller addresses most profoundly and most personally in his writings. This personal self-examination, which Schiller insists is a precondition for overcoming this pessimism. It's also crucial for organizing. In fact, everything I'm saying about the question of drama, tragedy, and Classical art, the same process of actually understanding what it means, should impel you to apply it when you organize. I assume that all of you are going to be organizing. So, even though we are speaking of the theater here, again I want to emphasize, that it is the method of the great tragedians and dramatists, especially Plato, Shakespeare, and Schiller, that we are discussing.
Generalizations and suppositions abound and statements are made without any recourse to factual evidence. Mr. Schlanger particularly singles out the Baby Boomers for his attention, without justifying his claims or establishing his criteria. I too am a Baby Boomer but I can guarantee, as a child of the 60's and 70's, my world view and moral standards are substantially different to Mr. Schlanger's.
You must be, above all, honest and courageous. You must always seek the truth, no matter what the cost is to you personally, and this, of course, is one of the big problems for the Baby-Boom generation. As Lyn has been discussing, the question of company manners, unfortunately, it's not just out there. Too often it's in all of us, that we still have "company manners," even though we think we are "too sophisticated" for such things. You'll find that, if you're really honest, you're never too sophisticated to slide into some form of degeneration.
What happens if I too seek honesty and truth but my conclusions as to what that comprises differ from Mr. Schlanger's? Ultimate truth is a slippery customer, open to the interpretation of the individual, even if the basic understanding remains the same.
You also have to be willing to take risks in order to arouse the human quality which may be presently dormant in another person. Schiller also wrote though, that, in great drama, the stage must not be used merely to teach moral lessons, but to engage the audience in uncovering the secret workings of the human soul.
Again, think about this in the context of the organizing process: How many of you think that you are organizing someone when you give them lectures about what's wrong with them? When you say "you're immoral, you should be doing what I'm telling you to do"? How many of you think that's organizing? Now, I know no one's going to raise their hand, but how many of you do that when you're organizing? Or, we have what I call the Joe Friday approach: "Nothing but the facts ma'am." "I'm going to tell you the what, where, when, how, and why of a gold-reserve system, and then you should organize."
To change another person, you have to address what Lyn always refers to as the "subjective." You have to realize that people have deep fears. The way you know it, is to look at yourself. People feel impotent. They feel incapable of rising above things. The critters have done a damn good job in convincing us that we cannot reach others.
It's also a fear of standing alone for principle. How many people could have done what Lyndon LaRouche has done? I'll tell you: None. Only Lyn, out of his whole generation, is still here to this day, fighting for the principles that he presumes many shared at the end of World War II.
So, that's the level on which we are discussing this question. ...
So, only Mr. LaRouche is righteous? The Bible might have something to say about that.
Unfortunately, those morality lessons and self-examination of "company" language doesn't seem to extend to treating other human beings with respect. Today's Americans are called, "... the kind of anti-intellectual whiners and victims, who would tolerate an election between these two modern day know-nothings, W. Bush and Al Gore, and the kind of demented hedonists who frequent racetracks, who buy lottery tickets, and who enjoy watching the World Wrestling Federation Smackdown. In short, they've turned most of us into the human cattle that they wanted."
Mr. Schlanger believes the methods employed by classical dramatists can free the American people from their self-abuse.
What I hope to show, and what I hope will be an interesting demonstration this evening, is that it is only through the revival of the method of Classical culture that we can free the majority of the population from this moral and intellectual self-degeneration, which we seem to choose, and is enforced through prevailing popular opinion, and that is what is threatening to destroy us today. So, let us take a look at Classical drama through different eyes today. In particular, I'm going to introduce you to a couple of the history plays of William Shakespeare to examine one excellent example of how Classical theater, properly composed and presented, can transform an audience.
Now, Lyndon LaRouche has addressed this principle repeatedly, including at this conference. Both he and Helga have taken up one of the principles of theater of Friedrich Schiller, that through experiencing a properly performed Classical drama, you actually have an audience that leaves the theater better people than when they entered. Let's first investigate briefly this method, to discover what it is we have to do if we are to pull humanity back from this dark age.
The aim of watching classical drama therefore, appears not only to be to teach those of us he refers to as "human cattle" and "hedonists", but it is also for the edification of those who are already enlightened. To enable them to more fully grasp better ways of understanding the "herd" and influencing their psychology for the purposes of "organizing".
The issue in Classical drama, as in the plastic arts and in music, is to master the method employed by the artist. When we talk about the small numbers, and indeed there are very few great artists that are available to us if you think about the vast span of history, but if you look at these individuals, you'll find that they have highly developed the capabilities that Stanley's friends in the Critter Company wish to destroy. Not just the ability to think, but connected with that, is the necessity to be an ennobled soul.
When you think about Classical culture, the idea is not just to read it and recite it as human recitation machines, as human tape recorders, the way it is done in the schools, but to actually get into the mind of the author. So, as Lyn says, that author comes to live in your own mind.
In organizing, as in Classical art, the task is to make conscious to the audience, the enslaving effects of the popularly accepted axiomatic assumptions, and the postulates attached to them, which limit a population in the choices they make, and which limit them to a fixed set of options, which are derived from the sense certainty which generates our thinking, for the most part, and is then reinforced by dull popular opinion.
To break these chains of slavery, it is necessary to induce a change in the identity of the person addressed, the person in the audience, to change that identity from one whose attachment is to the petty concerns of getting along, day by day. Instead, we must get them to think from the perspective of one with a world historic identity, who recognizes that each of us has an explicit, efficient, and living connection to those who went before us, to those who fought to improve civilization before us, as well as an obligation to those who will follow us.
Conference attendees are exhorted with the following question. "How can the hearts and minds of citizens become ennobled so that they may lead the citizens of the nation to become truly human?"
This leads on to Mr. Schlanger's following statement, already mentioned.
It is this fatal pessimism which Schiller addresses most profoundly and most personally in his writings. This personal self-examination, which Schiller insists is a precondition for overcoming this pessimism. It's also crucial for organizing. In fact, everything I'm saying about the question of drama, tragedy, and Classical art, the same process of actually understanding what it means, should impel you to apply it when you organize. I assume that all of you are going to be organizing. So, even though we are speaking of the theater here, again I want to emphasize, that it is the method of the great tragedians and dramatists, especially Plato, Shakespeare, and Schiller, that we are discussing.
In other words, conference attendees need to absorb the methods of the classical dramatists. Not only so they can grow as humans but so they can use the same methods to educate the "citizens of the nation to become truly human". To "organize" American citizens into their blueprint of what is required.
This assumes that Mr. Schlanger and the members of the audience know what that state is and that it is their duty and right to utilize these methods to educate everyone who isn't so enlightened. Like screaming parents manipulating a child into an argument so he can experience what it's like to be part of a dysfunctional family.
Supposedly, what's good for Americans is whatever they dictate that to be. And classical drama is not to be appreciated in it's own right but as a vehicle for getting the "herd" to do what those who are already "truly humans" desire and to behave appropriately; According to their standards.
Of course, Mr. Schlanger fails to mention or give any suggestions to the chosen, as to what they should do if the "cattle" come to conclusions other than those that are considered desirable. It's assumed Americans will agree with their solutions if they only watch what Mr. Schlanger and his peers want them to: In an approved forum and presentation, of course.
From my observation, as a permanent resident of the USA and someone who has chosen to live here, this is a poor assumption with no foundation. The people of America are already a great nation: Their many strengths include their ability to encourage independent thought and nurture individual choice. Two of the foundations of democracy.
Let's re-examine the reasons for the foundation of the Schiller Institute again.
Because we must find a better answer to this question, the international Schiller Institute has been founded. Its members in many nations share a fundamental belief in the reason of man, and in man's ability to solve even the greatest of crises...
The Institute's aim was to have established themselves as an "extraordinary example". They espoused "... a fundamental belief in the reason of man, and in man's ability to solve even the greatest of crises." Apparently, that reason and ability can only be allowed to stretch itself in ways that meet with their approval. Instead of merely exemplifying the ideal, now they're seeking ways of manipulating and corralling the "cattle".
I advocate that the people of the world have a desperate need for drama. And not only drama but all of the arts, from every period of history including an examination of contemporary art in all every aspect of its glory and unworthiness. Then, we can truly begin to use it to increase our understanding.
Once again, from the Schiller Institute's web site. From a transcription of the 1984 speech, "Friedrich Schiller: Poet of The American Revolution"
... let us hear the words
of Wilhelm von Humboldt, the great humanist and creator of the world's
best model of education, who lived in Schiller's company for many years, and
who, with Goethe, was one of the pillars of the Weimar classical period: If Friederich Schiller's contemporaries had ignored his work because of a fascination with the classics, there would be no Schiller Institute today and no foundation for Mr. Schlanger's comments. Or indeed, if his contemporaries had succeeded in their banning and censoring of his work. Instead, the human condition can best be understood and appreciated by a individual's work being "... assimilated by his contemporaries and bequeathed to future generations. This quiet and almost magical effect of great minds is the principal vehicle by which an ever expanding body of thought can extend ever more broadly and powerfully from one generation, one nation to the next."
Freedom to think and freedom to act, as each individual determines for their own life. That's what art encourages and what scares those who would restrict and constrain it. I doubt this is the effect Mr. Schlanger intends as he espouses the use of classical drama. For isn't one of the chief elements of drama, classical or otherwise, conflict? Rebellion is not what Mr. Schlanger is seeking and yet the ability to think for one's self, is exactly what artists have honored and encouraged since humanity began. I don't think that's quite what Mr. Schlanger has in mind.
|
|
Home | Spirituality | Creative Moments | Musings | The Library | The Living Room | Contact Kheris |