Marilynne Robinson: It’s won­der­ful to be here in this beau­ti­ful city. It’s won­der­ful to take part again in one of the great intel­lec­tu­al cen­ters of con­tem­po­rary life, The Nexus Institute. Such a plea­sure to be here among peo­ple whom it is an enor­mous plea­sure and hon­or to know. 

So. I will not solve the ques­tions that Rob has broached, but here’s what I have to say about them. 

Modern Western soci­eties are not organ­isms that thrive or per­ish as one thing, one mind, one expe­ri­ence. They are com­pacts, based on the expec­ta­tion that those charged with respon­si­bil­i­ties will car­ry them out in good faith, and cru­cial­ly that those who are rel­a­tive­ly pow­er­ful will not seri­ous­ly abuse, exploit, or sim­ply neglect those who are rel­a­tive­ly vulnerable. 

Democracy is pro­found mutu­al cour­tesy, an ethos of mutu­al respect, and is in this sense deeply spir­i­tu­al. It should nev­er be for­got­ten that Jefferson asserts human equal­i­ty in the terms of the Biblical cre­ation nar­ra­tive. The dig­ni­ty con­ferred on each indi­vid­ual by his cre­ator is to be acknowl­edged as inalien­able, wor­thy of all respect. Failure in this regard has always afflict­ed American democ­ra­cy, and every oth­er democ­ra­cy of which I have any knowl­edge. This spir­i­tu­al fail­ure has now become con­spic­u­ous, con­se­quen­tial, shameless—and in America, orga­nized under the aus­pices of the Republican Party. 

It star­tles me that I feel jus­ti­fied in say­ing such a thing. It appalls me that it is in urgent need of being said. But the impor­tance of this devi­a­tion from the first giv­en of the American demo­c­ra­t­ic order, this apos­ta­sy so to speak by a wealthy estab­lish­ment pres­ence, is tru­ly threatening. 

To trust one anoth­er with our bal­lots, and then to accept the deci­sions reflect­ed in them, has always depend­ed on an eth­ic of mutu­al respect which for the moment is not to be assumed. It is hard to imag­ine what will restore the integri­ty of the sys­tem, oth­er than a spir­i­tu­al awak­en­ing. Which could hap­pen, since old white peo­ple like me are trudg­ing toward the exits, demo­graph­i­cal­ly speak­ing, bear­ing away a great part of the fear­ful­ness and sanc­ti­mo­nious­ness that has bur­dened our pol­i­tics. There are vast cohorts of young peo­ple and newly-aroused and enfran­chised minori­ties for whom the found­ing doc­u­ments are author­i­ta­tive and beau­ti­ful. We can begin our recov­ery by respect­ing them. An easy first step because they are emi­nent­ly deserv­ing of respect. 

Decline emerges as an idea very often, per­haps con­tin­u­ous­ly, though it finds greater or less­er degrees of response from one iter­a­tion to the next. Those who raise the alarm in the inter­vals when there is lit­tle con­sen­sus to sup­port this view of things are lat­er seen as prophets. They add to the cho­rus or to the lit­er­a­ture to be deployed when such con­sen­sus does begin to emerge. If, his­tor­i­cal­ly, a grow­ing sense of decline pre­cedes cat­a­stro­phe, per­haps this is true because the idea pre­dis­pos­es the cul­ture to nihilism, and also to the des­per­ate bat­tle against nihilism, which is the oth­er side of the same coin. These two appar­ent­ly con­trary move­ments act as accel­er­ants to excite­ments that arise between them. Because they both pro­ceed­ed from cat­e­gor­i­cal and very neg­a­tive assump­tions about peo­ple in general—“the mass­es,” as they are often called in this con­text. This low esti­ma­tion means that no vision is offered of a future, an ongo­ing life, for the cul­ture that peo­ple in gen­er­al could wish to have a part in. 

I could be describ­ing the col­lapse of a democ­ra­cy, or I could be describ­ing the means by which a democ­ra­cy can sur­vive and over­come the great vul­ner­a­bil­i­ties by which democ­ra­cy is always threat­ened. It may not be very long before the mat­ter is deter­mined one way or the other. 

Our gov­ern­ment has been based in a greater degree than any of us were aware on norms and cus­toms, unen­force­able def­er­ence to prece­dent, and restraint in the face of oppo­si­tion. Our incum­bent is intent on remak­ing the office to suit his own char­ac­ter, and is both lim­it­ed and pro­tect­ed by a tra­di­tion of respect for the office of President. Respect which he seems not to share. 

When norms are vio­lat­ed with impuni­ty will they func­tion as norms again there­after? Will the stan­dards of con­duct they have sup­port­ed be changed by the attempts that are like­ly to come to enforce them by leg­is­la­tion, assum­ing a restora­tion of some­thing like nor­mal­cy? In oth­er words, will a com­plex insti­tu­tion­al sta­bil­i­ty be com­pro­mised, changed, or lost, leav­ing us with in America we can­not fore­see and will not have chosen? 

Many essen­tial things are in a state of true inde­ter­mi­na­cy, so it seems. Se are on our way to learn­ing how our pol­i­tics live in our civ­i­liza­tion, how we under­stand our prob­lems and what resources we bring to mit­i­gat­ing them. If we sub­scribe to decline as an inter­pre­ta­tion of our prob­lems, our democ­ra­cy will indeed fail. 

The con­cept decline” by impli­ca­tion takes a for­mer state of things to be good, and evil to be those ten­den­cies per­ceived at least as depart­ing from it. Evil is a word I’m gen­er­al­ly reluc­tant to use. But in the con­text of cul­tur­al pes­simism it evokes pre­cise­ly the nature of what is to be feared and resist­ed in the dis­so­lu­tion these peo­ple think they see. To call any­thing evil is to lift it out of the ordi­nary, the sec­u­lar, to assume in it a spe­cial ener­gy that places it beyond the strate­gies of rea­son and good intent, and that demands hyper­alert­ness and recourse to very extra­or­di­nary defens­es. This idea of evil is holi­ness invert­ed, Satan loose in a god­less world. Speak of this dev­il and he is very like­ly to appear. 

I do not believe, I can­not imag­ine that any human being could be with­out a spir­it, a soul. I believe as a mat­ter of faith as well as obser­va­tion that spir­i­tu­al­i­ty aris­es out of the indi­vid­ual spir­it, sole­ly by the grace of God, through dif­fi­cul­ty, despite neglect, in the absence of help and approval, in tact­ful or ten­ta­tive silence and secre­cy as sure­ly as in the recita­tion of any creed. I believe that human beings have an end­less­ly demon­strat­ed ten­den­cy to refuse to acknowl­edge the spir­it in them­selves and cru­cial­ly, in cul­tur­al­ly select­ed oth­ers: slaves, aliens, women, Jews, heretics, ene­mies real or per­ceived. The blind­ness they induce in them­selves releas­es them from the felt con­straints of jus­tice, mer­cy, and rev­er­ence, and mon­sters them indi­vid­u­al­ly and as soci­eties. This is a brief his­to­ry of human­i­ty’s crimes against itself. 

American Puritans, ances­tors of my tra­di­tion, the peo­ple who gave us Thanksgiving, did not cel­e­brate Christmas, which they con­sid­ered a pagan fes­ti­val. But they did in a larg­er sense cel­e­brate the Incarnation, the faith that God him­self could pass unno­ticed in this world, an ordi­nary man accord­ing to Calvin one phys­i­cal­ly marred by pover­ty and labor. Who might he not be? He told us who he was, the hun­gry, the sick, the impris­oned, the stranger. I believe there was once a con­ven­tion in a lib­er­al state that there is cour­tesy owed to those with whom he explic­it­ly iden­ti­fied. Well, soci­ety giveth and soci­ety taketh away. But for Christians, the Incarnation changed the world in one great par­tic­u­lar. We know what we do. Whom we slight, insult, ignore, for­get. The para­ble that is our faith would tell us that the spir­it is always real, always present, wait­ing to be seen. Thank you.

Further Reference

Event page

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.