by The Laird o’Thistle
July 27 2008
Caveat Emptor: This month’s column is a bit more academically dense than usual, but I hope my readers find it worth wading through. — KC
One of my treasured birthday gifts from several years back is the set of DVDs for Michael Wood’s television series “The Search for Shakespeare.” Even though I am something of a heretic in my views on Shakespeare – leaning to the view that the actual author of the works of “Shakespeare” was most probably the 17th Earl of Oxford – the Wood series gives one of the most accessible portrayals I have seen of the profound cultural shift that occurred in Great Britain in the second half of the sixteenth century. Beginning with the late medieval context of William Shakespeare’s extended family network in the area around Stratford, Wood carries the viewers forward into the early-modern setting of William Shakespeare’s later years in London and, finally, back home to what Stratford had become in the meantime. Whatever the real facts about the historical “Will,” for me the profound tale is that of the transition of medieval England into modern England.
At the head of England’s transition during the Shakespearean era was the redoubtable “Good Queen Bess,” and she naturally figures largely in Wood’s tale. The great cultural factors that shaped the change of eras came into full flower during her reign, though many of them dated back to the early stirrings of the Renaissance under her grandfather Henry VII, and the various fits and starts of the Protestant Reformation in England under her father and two siblings. During the Tudor era the communications revolution made possible by the printing press led to a flood of new knowledge available to a far broader audience, and along with it the literary efforts of Spencer, Marlowe, Sidney, Shakespeare, and so many others. Education became much more widely accessible. Bibles and books of theology came into the hands of middle-class readers as well… spurring on the rise of Puritanism.
Along with communication came new scientific worldviews and methods set forth by figures like Copernicus, and (slightly later) Galileo, and England’s own Francis Bacon. Old sources of authority and orthodoxy came to be challenged by the new intellectual elites, including the ways in which the scriptures were studied and interpreted, along with a broad range of new approaches to the study of philosophy, history, law, and economics.
In economics, the old feudal system of the common lands began to shift toward more stringent private property claims by the gentry and aristocracy, meanwhile, the urban mercantile classes were gaining wealth and power… both contributing to the eventual rise of capitalism. New forms of governance and social control were also arising, with more centralization, more formalized tracking of individuals even as they became more geographically mobile, and an increasing shift from the Lords to the Commons as the center of parliamentary power.
New travel technologies (ocean-worthy vessels and navigational tools) made possible the age of exploration and colonialism. Exploration also began to open up a greater understanding of the diversity of peoples and of the natural world. New defense technologies (improved firearms) transformed warfare, enabling conquest (beginning in places like Ireland), and before long began the trend toward professional armies. All in all, many old institutions either changed or perished in the face of the great cultural sea-change of the time.
The genius of Elizabeth I and her key advisors was that they managed to survive, adapt, and reinvent themselves in the context of their times. They did it so well that they left behind them a mythos that shaped the evolution of the British monarchy across the ensuing centuries. “Good Queen Bess” was, somehow, the heroine not only of devout monarchists but of Puritan Parliamentarians under Cromwell, and even later of American Revolutionaries. Along with the Magna Carta barons and those who brought the Bill of Rights into being under William and Mary, Elizabeth I was seen as one of the great figures in the evolution of the rights and freedoms of “an Englishman.” And while in strictly historical terms that perception may be a bit wide of the mark… Elizabeth’s regime actually being really quite authoritarian in nature… there is a truth embedded in the fact that her reign did help shape many of the conditions that made constitutional evolution possible. (Consider, for instance, the possible alternative if her sister Mary had survived and if Mary’s husband, Philip II of Spain, had become more deeply involved in English affairs.)
According to those who ponder such matters the characteristics of the modern era as it emerged in Britain and western Europe include the following:
1. Conquest and control — whether of colonial peoples, economics, nature, or the weather.
2. Mechanization – making and using machines, and regarding our bodies, society, and even the universe from a mechanistic perspective.
3. Reason and analysis – everything can be figured out and broken down into its basic parts. Analytical thinking was also esteemed over things like imagination, intuition, systems thinking, etc.
4. The pre-eminence of secular science – the scientific worldview prevailed, and things like religion were (at best) privatized and marginalized.
5. Quest for absolute objectivity – certainty was possible, facts were facts, the universe was ultimately intelligible, truth was not subjective.
6. Critical Method – if there can be only one truly objective truth, competing views are either true (or at least being distilled toward truth) or false. Rival views are thus subject to being debunked, dismissed, etc.
7. Organization – from politics to assembly lines to encyclopedias the goal was to organize, institutionalize, regiment, and classify.
8. Individualism – the mechanistic and organizational mindsets contributed to a disintegration of traditional community into a focus on individuals and autonomy.
9. Institutionalized (Protestant) Religion – taking control, rational, convinced of its own truth, organized, individualistic. (Characteristics also shared with institutional Catholicism in the wake of the so-called “Counter-Reformation.”)
10. Consumerist / Market Economy – accumulation of wealth and goods as the path to security, well-being, and happiness.
To the degree that art, ritual, ceremony, and other subjective elements featured in modernity were tolerated either as distraction or entertainment (opiates of the people), or functioned ideologically. Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations, for instance, were, in fact, a great display of British Imperial control and the preeminence of the virtues of the “modern” civilization Britain had spread around the globe.
My reason for laying out this rather involved and slightly arcane analysis of the origin and characteristics of the “modern” era is that, along with many contemporary observers, I believe that in the last century we have been seeing the stirrings of another great transition. (Western civilization seems to have re-invented itself about every 500 years, at least back to the time of Plato.) Hence, we are now in the midst of the shift from the modern era into what scholars have labeled the “post-modern” era. World culture is once again going through a profound shift in the way things are known, understood, and viewed. And the magnitude of this shift is unparalleled since the great change that occurred at the beginning of the modern era in the sixteenth century. And, as before, all the entities in our diverse world cultures must find the ways to change, adapt, evolve, or perish.
Like the era of Elizabeth I, the life and reign of Queen Elizabeth II spans much of the period of the current great transition. The communications revolution of this period goes from early radio and grainy newsreels of Elizabeth II’s infancy in 1926 to the world of television, and on now to blogs and iPods and whatever is about to spring upon us. As before, the new modalities of communication have profoundly changed the amount of information available to even vaster audiences. Encyclopedia Britannica, in a way the epitome of “modern” scholarship, now faces the challenges of Wikipedia. The traditional news media faces the competition of independent bloggers. I can write this column on one continent and you all can read it worldwide in a matter of hours (and if I did the posting directly it could be minutes).
This period in time is also characterized by a major paradigm shift in scientific worldviews and methods. The impact of the Copernican revolution and later Newtonian physics pales next to the implications of quantum physics and chaos theory, among others. The unlocking of the secrets of DNA and the mapping of the range of genomes rightly raises both the hopes and fears of all earth’s peoples. And in the midst of this, new intellectual elites are arising to again review and reassess our religious, philosophical, historical, legal, political, and economic assumptions. The religious and philosophical out-spinning of quantum theory, for instance, is providing a new openness to things like mysticism, and a general perspective that reality is much weirder than we thought in a Newtonian world. And so the similarities continue on across the full gamut of our profoundly changed world culture.
The characteristics of this emerging post-modern world follow from those of modernity. The new order is seen as: post-conquest & control (i.e., post-colonial, etc.), post-mechanized (i.e., moving from old-style “machinery” to “high-tech” and even the precarious realms of genetic engineering), post-analytical, post-scientific, post-objective, post-critical, post-national or post-institutional, post-individual, post-Protestant, and even post-consumerist. But, the crucial caveat here is that “post-“ is not to be understood to mean that we have left the components of modernity entirely behind. They remain part of the system just as our child-self is a core part of who we have grown to be as adults. The intention is rather to show that we are (hopefully) progressing in our understanding beyond the point where the characteristics of modernity are dominant either in our individual or cultural mindsets.
At its best, the post-modern perspective is focused on cooperation and empowerment of those on the margins. It is less exploitative and de-personalizing, less judgmental. It is more comfortable with things like mystery, imagination, and paradox. It is more subjective and tolerant. It is more comfortable with the sort of mythic views of reality where truth is not simply defined by accumulations of fact, but also by meaning. It is also more holistic, moving beyond dichotomies of “spirit vs. flesh”, “nature vs. nurture”, “science vs. faith”, and so on.
In many ways, the modern era was actually quite incompatible with the spirit of monarchy, with its deep medieval roots. And I think it is not surprising that so many monarchies disappeared over the course of the last two hundred years. Kingship simply is not very rational and functional in the scheme of things. Where it has survived it has done so by accommodation with the real centers of power in a given realm… the politicians, the monied interests, or the generals. Like art and religion, monarchy often persisted in the modern era mostly as a subjective cultural element in service of the “real” power-wielders in government. But I have a sense that in a variety of ways monarchy may prove less alien to post-modern culture, so long as it wins sufficiently free of the pitfalls of being part of vain attempts to perpetuate domination, exploitation, and control, and to identify itself with particular, supposedly “objective,” truths and perspectives.
The critical role that the British monarchy played in the shift from medieval to modern mindsets in the sixteenth century is something that I believe it is quietly reprising in the current shift from the modern to post-modern worlds. It is not a matter of deliberate policy, but simply the living out of the genius of this particular institution. The second Elizabeth compares to the first in proving herself to be a canny reader of the winds of change, and in the process has served at times as the virtual antithesis of her great namesake. Here are a few of the ways in which I see this at work in these latter years of what was once called the “New Elizabethan Age”:
1. The role that Elizabeth II has played in the transition from Empire to Commonwealth, which is to say from a power relationship based on domination to a relationship based on cooperation and mutual respect. That Britain has navigated these waters with so relatively little international upheaval and trauma has been really quite amazing. Her Majesty’s cautious embrace of political devolution within Britain also comes into play here. In particular, the “Queen of Scots” has stepped very carefully but firmly into the relationship with the new manifestations of ever-simmering Scottish nationhood in its Parliament and First Ministers. Along with the preceding comes her work throughout Britain as the so-called “Head of the Nation” to nurture multicultural sensitivity and inclusivity. Besides reaching across racial, ethnic, and religious divides in a way none of her predecessors could have imagined, she has also gone a long way in accommodating those whose relational status (divorced, cohabiting, same-gender, etc.) would have thrust them far to the margins in earlier generations. Each and all of these undertakings are post-modern in nature.
2. The work of the Prince of Wales to raise environmental awareness, concerns for holistic approaches to health, and promoting life on a human scale that embraces the need for the nurture of mind and spirit. From his interests in architecture and gardening to his monastic retreats to Mount Athos, Prince Charles models an impressive range of post-modern concerns for wholeness and the inter-relatedness of all life. His longstanding interest in interfaith spirituality (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc.) is particularly in tune with post-modernism.
3. The diversification of the royal family is also characteristically post-modern. No longer restricted to intermarrying with other royalty, or even aristocracy, the extended royal family now includes various commoners, a Maori (the Duke of Gloucester’s son-in-law Gary Lewis), a Canadian (Autumn Kelly), and might in the not-too-distant future include a young woman from Zimbabwe (Chelsy Davy). And, not to forget, just across the North Sea the former wife of Denmark’s Prince Joachim was the much loved and admired Princess Alexandra, who was Anglo-Chinese from Hong Kong. The transcending of class, national, and racial-ethnic boundaries mirrors the evolution of European and British society… albeit the ongoing foundation of the monarchy remains inescapably grounded in hereditary privilege. And within the coming generation, it is not improbable that increasing diversity will appear… doubtless including at some point an “out” gay or lesbian royal in a committed partnered relationship. (Now there would be a royal wedding that would give the Archbishop of Canterbury some sleepless nights!)
4. Finally, consider the visibility of the royal family, bordering on that artificially created for participants in various “reality” television programs. Over the course of the last fifty-six years the Queen has become, far and away, the most traveled, seen, observed, met, and known British Sovereign ever. And her family shares that distinction and fate. On the one hand, this has humanized the office, role, and function of the monarchy; on the other hand, it has led to profound intrusions and invasions in the personal lives and privacy of the royals that have become media staples. The decline of deference belies the more general malaise of respect for individuals and their privacy endemic in our brave new world. But, the backlash in the wake of Princess Diana’s death-by-paparazzi has also opened up a new sensitivity to the need for appropriately defined boundaries. The re-negotiation of public versus private is one of the trickiest aspects of the emerging era.
Beyond these sorts of specifics, one of the primary elements that I see at work in the self-consciousness of the current royal establishment in Britain is a keen awareness that they are participating in an institution that is essentially one of symbol and myth, and that its function is to use that institution in ways that express authenticity rather than becoming an anachronistic charade. What it portrays does not have to be literal fact, so long as it portrays essential truth. This is not the mere “fairy tale” function so often cited in popular media in connection with royal romances and such. (That is more in the modern-era “subjective distraction” mode.) Rather it has to do with what former P.M. Tony Blair called “the best of British.” Rather than renouncing privilege (which too often has been seen to simply fall into other hands anyway), modern royals have the opportunity to mindfully use their privilege in the service of the whole of society and individuals within it as political representatives of all the people of Britain.
Clearly, the British Monarchy is no longer the ideological icon of Empire, but the Queen still quite literally shows the face of Britain to the world. She and her royal cousins in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Spain play a particularly key role in incarnating their varying national characters. The Crown, at its best, presents in its ceremonies the abstractions that touch the core of the truths that lie at the center of British society. The woman who ceremonially commands the armed services also informs her grandson that he is going to Afghanistan to fight. The woman who hands out the Royal Maundy has a daughter who has traveled to some of the world’s neediest places in behalf of Save the Children. The woman who plants so many trees on her visits also has converted her vehicles and homes to more environmentally friendly sources and forms of energy. The woman who is Supreme Governor of the Church of England is also a sincere and faithful communicant who also manages to be seen fairly regularly in interfaith contexts of respectful encounter. She and her family participate in the realities of the myths and symbols which contextualize national life for all. She lives her job and believes in it heart and soul. And, the royals all know – despite their occasional missteps – that it is when they fail to do this, or when the myth ceases to be vitally connected to the life of the nation, that they will finally and truly become redundant.
Several years back a slightly controversial new portrait of Queen Elizabeth II was created using a hologram, through which an image of Her Majesty was created in the core of a block of a clear material. The image could be viewed from all angles and sides as though it were three-dimensional, even though it was, in fact, a projection into the host medium. And as I understand it, it is one of the peculiarities of holograms that from any bit of the image the rest could be recreated, and that is possible because the image is not based on a traditional photographic imprint but on the encoded formula of all of the light that was present when the image was made. (If I have the science and technology wrong here, I do apologize and hope the more knowledgeable will forgive me… my academic expertise lies in the humanities!)
Holograms are particularly representative of the emerging post-modern world, and this particular image of the Queen actually provides a potent metaphor of the potential of the emerging post-modern monarchy… the projected image of the “Head of the Nation” whose every bit exhibits the light that is reflective of the whole. It is my thought that as we move together into the future the persons of each successive monarch, her- or himself, will not so much consist in having to be the image per se, but the person of the monarch must at least provide an appropriate medium to convey the projection of a national image that can be viewed from many perspectives. And hopefully, it will contain the projection of what is best and “brilliant” in that image at a given time. The outlines of what that may mean in flesh and blood terms are already beginning to be evident and will become clearer in coming days and years.
Yours Aye,
– Ken Cuthbertson
Note: In addition to the work of Michael Wood noted at the outset, I’d like to acknowledge Brian McLaren’s book A New Kind of Christian for guiding my thoughts and explanation of the characteristics of post-modernism, and Robert Hardman’s book A Year with the Queen for the concept of the distinction between the traditional “head of state” and the emerging role of the “head of the nation.”