Contra MacIntyre
Alasdair MacIntyre is a towering figure. Perhaps that is why he looks down upon Rod Dreher and the Benedict Option Movement. Compared with his own great stature, they must seem small, insignificant, distant. Of course, from that vantage point one wonders how detailed, how accurate his vision of those below really is. MacIntyre clearly resents the Benedict Option Movement, but it’s not clear he knows what he’s talking about, at least judging from his oft-repeated criticism:
“Let me make one thing clear, the so-called Benedict Option movement, insofar as it is inspired by anything to do with me is inspired by one sentence only. And people who have put it forward have apparently read nothing but that one sentence. That is a sentence in which I suggest that we have been waiting for a new St. Benedict.”
Now before we return to what MacIntyre claims he meant by a new St. Benedict, let me first state as a close reader of both MacIntyre and Dreher, that the former’s assertion is absolute rubbish. Even a casual reader will recognize far more than just one sentence of agreement.
First and foremost, both are extremely skeptical of liberal modernity. Even though Dreher is involved with The American Conservative and sometimes indulges in vague pinings for “old fashioned liberalism,” he is clearly no liberal. Though he may not be as accepting of Marx as MacIntyre would like him to be, one can hardly fault him for not being as strident as Herbert McCabe (sadly, few are). To be clear, Dreher’s point of view isn’t really conservative either. If it is, it’s only “conservative” in precisely the same way MacIntyre’s is: both want to conserve and/or recover certain values which have been undermined or distorted by liberal modernity. These are values deeply embedded in the Christian tradition and the natural law.
Despite this admirable cause, both authors are also deeply pessimistic. Critics of Dreher’s “dour alarmism” need only look so far as the opening line of MacIntyre’s After Virtue to find its inspiration. Though it is worth revisiting that work in its entirety, one gets a sense of just how dystopian he finds our current predicament in the scenario he lays out at the outset:
“Imagine that the natural sciences were to suffer the effects of a catastrophe. A series of environmental disasters are blamed by the general public on the scientists. Widespread riots occur, laboratories are burnt down, physicists are lynched, books and instruments are destroyed. Finally a Know-Nothing political movement takes power and successfully abolishes science teaching in schools and universities, imprisoning and executing the remaining scientists...The hypothesis which I wish to advance is that in the actual world which we inhabit the language of morality is in the same state of grave disorder as the language of natural science in the imaginary world which I described.”
Now given this rather rosy picture, it is not surprising that people want to escape. I mean, how could you really blame them? In fact, it reminds me of something Tolkien once said: “Why should a man be scorned, if, finding himself in prison, he tries to get out and go home?” But, oddly enough, escape from society is not—no matter how much its critics insist—what The Benedict Option is about. But this is precisely what MacIntyre thinks it is. As he says in his critique,
“[W]hen I said we need a new St. Benedict, I was suggesting we need a new kind of engagement with the social order, not any kind of withdrawal from it.”
Developing new ways for Christians to engage with society is quite literally what The Benedict Option is all about. Like MacIntyre, Dreher still has hope, Christian hope. So rather than echo ridiculous caricatures, MacIntyre would do well to actually read the book before he criticizes it. But then, he might have to develop some humility like the real St. Benedict. He might have to accept that although he has diagnosed the problem, he has done next to nothing in terms of fleshing out what a “new set of social forms” would actually look like. Successful or not, Dreher has done far more to carry that positive vision forward, and for that he deserves our thanks, not our derision.
Thanks for your generous comments. MacIntyre's opposition is petulant and perplexing. I sent him a copy of my book, with a note saying that his negative comments indicated that he had not read it. I told him that I was prepared to accept criticism from him, but that I thought it only fair that he read the book before criticizing my views, because in his public remarks so far, he pretty seriously misunderstood my thesis. He wrote me back to acknowledge receipt of the book, and to say that he had no intention of reading it. A year or so later, I was at Notre Dame when he gave a presentation. After it was over, I went forward and introduced myself to him. He was extremely anxious in the moment, so I didn't linger to make him feel bad. Still, it's a pretty bad show for such a gifted scholar. My suspicion is that he -- like Wendell Berry and Stanley Hauerwas, who are more or less in the same age group -- cannot stand that younger figures on the Right are taking up their ideas.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reply. That’s an unfortunate albeit not entirely surprising story—I’ve heard quite a few of a similar sort.
DeleteTo your point though, I’m not sure it even makes sense to categorize some of these figures as being on the Right. To me the characterization seems rather forced. I, for one, would never consider myself on the Right, although I hold certain positions, such as opposition to abortion, gender ideology, etc., that many would associate with the Right. At the same time, I also strongly support groups like the EZLN who are anything but right wing. Yet somehow I get the feeling that AM would still try to lump me in with Sean Hannity and Ben Shapiro.
“These damn boomers, man.” - Rod Dreher, 2021, above ^
ReplyDeleteJokes aside, I sympathize with Rod. Who does MacIntyre want reading his books? Clinton Democrats? Burning Man bohemians? AOC & The Squad?
Does he not want politically uncool kids in his fanbase?
It’s odd. MacIntyre obviously yearns for an intelligent Christian culture to overtake the modern secular west. Yet he publicly spurns the Christian conservatives who want to make that reality & give him the credit. His disavowals of the Benedict Option will probably be the most publicized remarks of his life.
Since Rod mentioned Hauerwas too, here’s an interesting connection. MacIntyre & Hauerwas were neighbors early in their careers.
Hauerwas is required reading in Christian bioethics. The bioethicists he inspires are mostly Catholic & Orthodox, with a small group of conservative Protestants. He’s open about his doctrinal problems with Catholics. He’s brutally honest & I respect that, but it often sounds like he’s trying to spite his Catholic readers. Much like MacIntyre spiting his conservative readers now.
John Millbank author of Radical Orthodoxy is not dissimilar in his distaste for conservatives, even though he wrote a blockbuster piece presumably aimed at that audience. He’s become somewhat overly grumpy about Brexit and constantly posts columns from the Guardian about how awful Britain is. I gather David Bentley Hart is likewise odious to many potential supporters. Not surprisingly Millbank, Hart, and Hauerwas are pals. I wonder if they are friendly with Macintyre? They remind me of aged boomer rock stars who in the godlike status think it is amusing to be rude to fans .
ReplyDelete