What do you think?
Rate this book
Visions of Order: The Cultural Crisis of Our Time
An essential work from scholar and rhetorician Richard Weaver, a leading figure in the rise of the modern conservative intellectual movement.
256 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1971
10 people are currently reading
229 people want to read
About the author
Richard M. Weaver
12 books111 followersRichard Malcolm Weaver, Jr was an American scholar who taught English at the University of Chicago. He is primarily known as an intellectual historian, political philosopher, and a mid-20th century conservative and as an authority on modern rhetoric. Weaver was briefly a socialist during his youth, a lapsed leftist intellectual (conservative by the time he was in graduate school), a teacher of composition, a Platonist philosopher, cultural critic, and a theorist of human nature and society.
Described by biographer Fred Young as a "radical and original thinker", Weaver's books Ideas Have Consequences (1948) and The Ethics of Rhetoric (1953) remain influential among conservative theorists and scholars of the American South. Weaver was also associated with a group of scholars who in the 1940s and 1950s promoted traditionalist conservatism.
Described by biographer Fred Young as a "radical and original thinker", Weaver's books Ideas Have Consequences (1948) and The Ethics of Rhetoric (1953) remain influential among conservative theorists and scholars of the American South. Weaver was also associated with a group of scholars who in the 1940s and 1950s promoted traditionalist conservatism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
December 22, 2019
Weaver’s thesis is the inner order of the soul reflects the outer order of society. Values are teleological and hierarchically ordered. All cultures have a center, and this center produces an ordered hierarchy (Weaver 12). This is inevitable, for were it not for this center, which by definition discriminates, cultures would disintegrate. Indeed, “The inner organizations of a structured society act as struts and braces and enable it to withstand a blow which would shatter the other” (18).
Weaver draws upon Aristotle’s notion of entelechy, a binding and intentionality that things have. A culture can make room for the democratic element, but a pure democratic element can never save a culture. Specifically, democracy cannot integrate subcultures as quantitative units (14). When “democracy fills the entire horizon,” it produces a hatred for difference.
Definition of culture: an exclusive self-defining creation that defines society’s imaginative life. It does not express itself in equality but in a common participation from “different levels and through different vocations” (18). Cultures have styles, and both must have stability. “True style displays itself in elaboration, rhythm, and distance...rhythm is a marking of beginnings and endings.” -- “Distance is what preserves us from the vulgarity of immediacy” (19).
His chapter “Status and Function” demonstrates the difference between a culture of the forms and order versus one of “the now.” “The status of a thing is its attained nature and quality” (24). In society this manifests itself in aristocracy, either official or unofficial. Aristocracies must perform a function, otherwise they degenerate.
Aristocracies are good but they can crystallize into something terrible. We see this in the caste system of India and the slave system of the Old South. This happens when a culture divinizes its own creations.
Weaver’s most important chapter is his one of Total War. Total War is when democracy is applied to war. Old Man, chivalrous man, knew there were distinctions in society, which meant some people were off limits. Democracy by definition flattens all distinctions--no one should be off limits.
Total War isn’t just the negation of the just war principle; it defeats the whole point of going to war. If you go to war, then you must have a rationale for war. There is a decision involved, which means an arbitration. Total war reverses this. Victory was already had from the beginning. You just have to apply it to the other side.
Weaver completely refutes the line that total war ends up saving more lives. Maybe it does in some cases, but that negates the whole point. You don’t go to war to save lives, otherwise there wouldn’t be any war!
Total war also negates civilization. In order for civilization to arise, there must be restraints in society. These allow society to flourish. Total war removes all these restraints, and so removes the basis for civilization.
Weaver’s prose, as always, is near-perfect. That makes the book a difficult read at times, as he overwhelms you with perfect prose and close logic. Still, this was a delightful and stirring read.
Weaver draws upon Aristotle’s notion of entelechy, a binding and intentionality that things have. A culture can make room for the democratic element, but a pure democratic element can never save a culture. Specifically, democracy cannot integrate subcultures as quantitative units (14). When “democracy fills the entire horizon,” it produces a hatred for difference.
Definition of culture: an exclusive self-defining creation that defines society’s imaginative life. It does not express itself in equality but in a common participation from “different levels and through different vocations” (18). Cultures have styles, and both must have stability. “True style displays itself in elaboration, rhythm, and distance...rhythm is a marking of beginnings and endings.” -- “Distance is what preserves us from the vulgarity of immediacy” (19).
His chapter “Status and Function” demonstrates the difference between a culture of the forms and order versus one of “the now.” “The status of a thing is its attained nature and quality” (24). In society this manifests itself in aristocracy, either official or unofficial. Aristocracies must perform a function, otherwise they degenerate.
Aristocracies are good but they can crystallize into something terrible. We see this in the caste system of India and the slave system of the Old South. This happens when a culture divinizes its own creations.
Weaver’s most important chapter is his one of Total War. Total War is when democracy is applied to war. Old Man, chivalrous man, knew there were distinctions in society, which meant some people were off limits. Democracy by definition flattens all distinctions--no one should be off limits.
Total War isn’t just the negation of the just war principle; it defeats the whole point of going to war. If you go to war, then you must have a rationale for war. There is a decision involved, which means an arbitration. Total war reverses this. Victory was already had from the beginning. You just have to apply it to the other side.
Weaver completely refutes the line that total war ends up saving more lives. Maybe it does in some cases, but that negates the whole point. You don’t go to war to save lives, otherwise there wouldn’t be any war!
Total war also negates civilization. In order for civilization to arise, there must be restraints in society. These allow society to flourish. Total war removes all these restraints, and so removes the basis for civilization.
Weaver’s prose, as always, is near-perfect. That makes the book a difficult read at times, as he overwhelms you with perfect prose and close logic. Still, this was a delightful and stirring read.
March 7, 2025
Read for dissertation prospectus
If you’ve talked to me at any length, you’ll know that Richard Weaver has influenced my intellectual and ideological development more than almost anyone else. “Ideas Have Consequences” changed my life when I read it, and Weaver has been giving to me since.
Visions of Order is a shockingly modern book, given that it was written over 70 years ago. The cultural crisis Weaver describes was prescient when he wrote it, and it is downright prophetic being read retrospectively. Weaver is a prophet of tradition, calling the congregants of culture to slow down and consider the telos behind our relentless progress. It is the logical corollary to “Ideas” in that the consequences of ideas is the upbuilding or destruction of culture.
The chapter on education is the best critique of modern Dewey-inspired soulless public education I’ve read.
If you want to know what I believe and why (localism, techno-skepticism, hierarchy, strong view of authority and submission, skeptical of equalitarianism, committed to Christian classical education, etc. etc.) read this book. It is one of the most comprehensive and formative books I have ever read.
If you’ve talked to me at any length, you’ll know that Richard Weaver has influenced my intellectual and ideological development more than almost anyone else. “Ideas Have Consequences” changed my life when I read it, and Weaver has been giving to me since.
Visions of Order is a shockingly modern book, given that it was written over 70 years ago. The cultural crisis Weaver describes was prescient when he wrote it, and it is downright prophetic being read retrospectively. Weaver is a prophet of tradition, calling the congregants of culture to slow down and consider the telos behind our relentless progress. It is the logical corollary to “Ideas” in that the consequences of ideas is the upbuilding or destruction of culture.
The chapter on education is the best critique of modern Dewey-inspired soulless public education I’ve read.
If you want to know what I believe and why (localism, techno-skepticism, hierarchy, strong view of authority and submission, skeptical of equalitarianism, committed to Christian classical education, etc. etc.) read this book. It is one of the most comprehensive and formative books I have ever read.
March 7, 2019
In chronological terms, I started my reading of Richard Weaver at the end. Visions of Order was published posthumously after Weaver's sudden death in 1963, at the age of 53. Weaver is better known for his 1948 book Ideas Have Consequences, which some mark as the beginning of the post-World War II conservative resurgence. But in some ways, Visions of Order is the best place to start if you want to understand Weaver's thought in its fullest development. This book continues some of the themes found in Ideas, though the former book is less tightly organized than the latter (though it should be noted that this is not a criticism).
One constant between the two books is that Weaver, an authority on rhetoric, wastes no words. This is all the more impressive when one considers the weightiness of Weaver's ideas. In "The Image of Culture," Weaver writes that a culture is formed around a unifying symbol (custom, religion, literature) and that it uses adherence to this symbol to determine who is inside and outside of the culture. In this way, Weaver says, culture is neither democratic nor inclusive. It rather has an “ideal of perfection” that determines its form and style and keeps “before its members a standard of the right and not right.” He says that the task of the preservers of culture is “to expose as erroneous attempts to break down the discriminations of a culture.” He notes the need to “resist the alien,” culturally speaking, because departure from cultural norms begins to unravel the culture itself.
This is likely to horrify the modern mind, inculcated as it is about the the virtue of inclusiveness. But even the most multiculturally committed person has a standard for who is or is not an acceptable member of society, and therefore feels the need to "resist the alien." The difference then is not so much whether or not some cultures are entirely inclusive and others entirely exclusive, but rather which criteria which cultures use to to determine who is included and who is excluded. This was Weaver's concern. In reference to European fascism, he writes, “if no reasonable cultural unification is offered, an unreasonable one may be invented and carried to frightful lengths.” That just such ramifications of unreasonable cultural unifications are today apparent, on the right and the left, seems to prove Weaver's point.
In "The Cultural Role of Rhetoric," Weaver writes that even in arguing for change, one should show the proper respect for the popular expressions and attitudes of a culture. Weaver writes, "we can see that dialectic [argumentation based on facts and logic], when not accompanied by a historical consciousness and responsibility, works to dissolve those opinions, based partly on feeling, which hold a society together. It tends, therefore, to be essentially revolutionary and without commitment to practical realities. It is even contumacious toward the 'given,' ignoring it or seeking to banish it in favor of a merely self-consistent exposition of ideas. Rhetoric, on the other hand, tries to bring opinion into closer line with the truth which dialectic pursues. It is therefore cognizant of the facts of situations and it is at least understanding of popular attitudes."
Perhaps most shocking to modern readers, especially conservatives, is Weaver's essay, "A Dialectic on Total War," in which he condemns the cultural corrosion that is both at the root of and is exacerbated by modern warfare. Weaver calls back to the code of chivalry, with its distinctions and standards of conduct during wartime, as an example of the Western tradition of war, and he sees World War II - even Allied behavior during that war - as obliterating that tradition.
Weaver writes, "what chivalry taught is that even when men fight, they must fight as brothers. It was a guarantee of equal and inalienable rights in situations where the passions of men are most likely to deny rights. ...The code of chivalry declared that even if you feel that you have to fight your brother man, this does not mean that you place him outside the pale of humanity, nor does it mean that you may step outside yourself. Even in warfare, and whether you get the best or the worst of it, you conduct yourself in such a way that civilization can go on. The real, the absolute prohibition, is against shattering the mold of civilization, which includes both you and your foe. It will have to be recognized that the worst thing of all is to give up your status as a self-controlled human being, because once that is given up, you are by no means certain of retrieving it." The firebombing of Dresden, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Weaver thinks, are examples of the inheritors of the code of chivalry giving up their self-control.
In "A Reconsideration of Man," the final chapter, Weaver critiques the scientistic bent of modern society, and its influence on man, in the process sounding many notes similar to C.S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man. Weaver, however, seems more willing to take on scientific theories, writing, "We hear smooth words to the effect that there is no real conflict between science and religion or between science and literature. There is no real conflict when one side gives up. The question still at issue is whether the facts and the logic dictate so complete a surrender as has been urged on one party." He adds, "Increasingly the scientists are asking us to believe things that are contrary to the witness of our senses, and what is possibly more serious, contrary to the testimony of our intuitions."
What science would destroy in the name of progress, Weaver writes, is culture - which, for Weaver and his belief that culture provides the context for life, would essentially mean the destruction of life. He concludes, both the chapter and the book, "a culture is a protection against the fanaticism both of the political and the religious kinds. If there is nothing but a vacancy between men and their political or religious ideal, the response to this may be without the rationality and grace of measure. But if these ideals are expressed in a thousand kindly and attractive forms in the creations of a culture, mere fierceness is mollified and the manner and approach are made right. ...This is the highest reason of all for desiring to preserve the basis of our culture, which we have now seen to be threatened by pseudoscientific images of man."
There are far too many good thoughts and quotes and bits of analysis in this book to include in a single review. Visions of Order is a tremendous addition to the library of anyone who is interested in culture, freedom, and the intersection of the two.
One constant between the two books is that Weaver, an authority on rhetoric, wastes no words. This is all the more impressive when one considers the weightiness of Weaver's ideas. In "The Image of Culture," Weaver writes that a culture is formed around a unifying symbol (custom, religion, literature) and that it uses adherence to this symbol to determine who is inside and outside of the culture. In this way, Weaver says, culture is neither democratic nor inclusive. It rather has an “ideal of perfection” that determines its form and style and keeps “before its members a standard of the right and not right.” He says that the task of the preservers of culture is “to expose as erroneous attempts to break down the discriminations of a culture.” He notes the need to “resist the alien,” culturally speaking, because departure from cultural norms begins to unravel the culture itself.
This is likely to horrify the modern mind, inculcated as it is about the the virtue of inclusiveness. But even the most multiculturally committed person has a standard for who is or is not an acceptable member of society, and therefore feels the need to "resist the alien." The difference then is not so much whether or not some cultures are entirely inclusive and others entirely exclusive, but rather which criteria which cultures use to to determine who is included and who is excluded. This was Weaver's concern. In reference to European fascism, he writes, “if no reasonable cultural unification is offered, an unreasonable one may be invented and carried to frightful lengths.” That just such ramifications of unreasonable cultural unifications are today apparent, on the right and the left, seems to prove Weaver's point.
In "The Cultural Role of Rhetoric," Weaver writes that even in arguing for change, one should show the proper respect for the popular expressions and attitudes of a culture. Weaver writes, "we can see that dialectic [argumentation based on facts and logic], when not accompanied by a historical consciousness and responsibility, works to dissolve those opinions, based partly on feeling, which hold a society together. It tends, therefore, to be essentially revolutionary and without commitment to practical realities. It is even contumacious toward the 'given,' ignoring it or seeking to banish it in favor of a merely self-consistent exposition of ideas. Rhetoric, on the other hand, tries to bring opinion into closer line with the truth which dialectic pursues. It is therefore cognizant of the facts of situations and it is at least understanding of popular attitudes."
Perhaps most shocking to modern readers, especially conservatives, is Weaver's essay, "A Dialectic on Total War," in which he condemns the cultural corrosion that is both at the root of and is exacerbated by modern warfare. Weaver calls back to the code of chivalry, with its distinctions and standards of conduct during wartime, as an example of the Western tradition of war, and he sees World War II - even Allied behavior during that war - as obliterating that tradition.
Weaver writes, "what chivalry taught is that even when men fight, they must fight as brothers. It was a guarantee of equal and inalienable rights in situations where the passions of men are most likely to deny rights. ...The code of chivalry declared that even if you feel that you have to fight your brother man, this does not mean that you place him outside the pale of humanity, nor does it mean that you may step outside yourself. Even in warfare, and whether you get the best or the worst of it, you conduct yourself in such a way that civilization can go on. The real, the absolute prohibition, is against shattering the mold of civilization, which includes both you and your foe. It will have to be recognized that the worst thing of all is to give up your status as a self-controlled human being, because once that is given up, you are by no means certain of retrieving it." The firebombing of Dresden, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Weaver thinks, are examples of the inheritors of the code of chivalry giving up their self-control.
In "A Reconsideration of Man," the final chapter, Weaver critiques the scientistic bent of modern society, and its influence on man, in the process sounding many notes similar to C.S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man. Weaver, however, seems more willing to take on scientific theories, writing, "We hear smooth words to the effect that there is no real conflict between science and religion or between science and literature. There is no real conflict when one side gives up. The question still at issue is whether the facts and the logic dictate so complete a surrender as has been urged on one party." He adds, "Increasingly the scientists are asking us to believe things that are contrary to the witness of our senses, and what is possibly more serious, contrary to the testimony of our intuitions."
What science would destroy in the name of progress, Weaver writes, is culture - which, for Weaver and his belief that culture provides the context for life, would essentially mean the destruction of life. He concludes, both the chapter and the book, "a culture is a protection against the fanaticism both of the political and the religious kinds. If there is nothing but a vacancy between men and their political or religious ideal, the response to this may be without the rationality and grace of measure. But if these ideals are expressed in a thousand kindly and attractive forms in the creations of a culture, mere fierceness is mollified and the manner and approach are made right. ...This is the highest reason of all for desiring to preserve the basis of our culture, which we have now seen to be threatened by pseudoscientific images of man."
There are far too many good thoughts and quotes and bits of analysis in this book to include in a single review. Visions of Order is a tremendous addition to the library of anyone who is interested in culture, freedom, and the intersection of the two.
February 19, 2021
Richard Weaver was an extraordinarily perceptive writer. Visions of Order is his assessment of culture and its decline in the West.
(Ch. 1) The Image of Culture. Not all cultures are equal; some are better than others. Weaver considers the essence of culture and how to go about assessing a society’s culture. He identifies a “tyrannyzing image” at the center of culture, which stands as the “ideal of its excellence.” The image is “a center of authority from which there proceed subtle and pervasive pressures upon us to conform and to repel the unlike as disruptive.” Culture is “by nature aristocratic,” meaning that all cultures create a “center of value and see to it that the group is oriented toward it.” There is a ranking and ordering around the culture’s ideal.
Weaver warns of a democratic principle outgrowing its function. He returns to this critique throughout the book so it becomes an important point. What he means by this is that the role of democracy has an important role to play, but it is only valuable within the its proper place (politics). “Democracy is not a pattern for all existence any more than a form of economic activity is a substitute for the whole of living.” “When democracy is taken from its proper place and is allowed to fill the entire horizon, it produces an envious hatred not only of all distinction but even of all difference.”
(Ch. 2) Status and Function. By status, Weaver means “the feature of permanence” or the form of something. By function, Weaver means “that of change” or activity. Think of them as standing for the aristocratic (the title and place that people hold in society based on their position/status) and the meritocratic (the capacity for action and the earned reputation of a person). He posits the old South and old North as examples of status-heavy and function-heavy societies, respectively. Weaver argues that there must be a proper balance in a culture’s use of status and function. Status or aristocracy has the danger of degenerating into a caste system or a lifeless nobility; function has the danger of degenerating into utilitarianism where their is no proper moral standard for the kind of achievement that should be rewarded. “In order to have meaningful status we must have something ascending up toward an ultimate source of good.”
(Ch. 3) The Attack Upon Memory. “Between myth and status and memory there is a necessary connection. Clearly people cannot identify or appreciate status unless they can carry with them a memory of society’s hierarchical structure and of the image in response to which it has framed itself. . . Cultural life depends upon remembrance of acknowledged values, and for this reason any signs of a prejudice against memory is a signal of danger.”
(Ch. 4) The Cultural Role of Rhetoric. Weaver’s thesis for this chapter is “that too exclusive reliance upon dialectic is a mistake of the most serious consequence because dialectic alone in the social realm is subversive.” What he means by this is that dialectic “does not tell man what he must do.” It does not give man a direction. It is equated with the scientism of our day which may show how things are related but it does assign value to anything in particular. Rhetoric, on the other hand, “is designed to move men’s feelings in the direction of a goal.” It includes value judgments and persuades others to move toward certain ends. “The conclusion is that a society cannot live without rhetoric. There are some tings in which the group needs to believe which cannot be demonstrated to everyone rationally.” And these are the most important things of a culture.
The upshot of this is important. “The dialectician knows, but he knows in a vacuum; or, he knows, but he is without knowledge of how to act. Unless he is sustained by faith atone end or the other—unless he embraced something before he began the dialectical process or unless he embraces it afterward—he rains an unassimilable social agnostic.” This describes our culture well. Progressing quickly, but to know end in particular.
(Ch. 5) Forms and Social Cruelty. Weaver labels our society as one devoted to “machine culture.” “It would seem. . .that comfort and convenience, to which we should add a love of mobility, have made themselves a new Moloch; and the idol demands of his worshippers not only the annual toll of life but also a restlessness and superficiality of spirit.” He labels our culture as one of the “most brutal cultures that ever existed,” yet we hardly even notice it. Each year we sacrifice human life to the god of comfort and convenience and we don’t even question it. This can be seen in numerous ways—Weaver focuses on automobiles and the annual lives lost or paralyzed from them, without question. Another obvious connection would be abortion, which is even more direct; it is the literal sacrifice of life for the sake of comfort and convenience.
The answer is simple. “[T]he road away from idolatry remains the same as before: it lies in respect for the struggling dignity of man and for his orientation toward something higher than himself which he has not created.”
(Ch. 6) A Dialectic on Total War. In this chapter Weaver discusses warfare and its growth from a principled sphere to a total enterprise. From the battlefields where the rules of war were (at least predominantly) understood and respected and the combatants engaged with one another and not citizens, to the day and age where atomic bombs can be dropped and can wipe out whole civilizations, to a time where cities, including women and children, can be destroyed, and where all is justified in light of the end in view. From this evolution, we can easily see that we have lost our understanding of war. Means and ends are not properly respected so we see the ends justifying the means. We see this not only in war, but in politics and other fields too. The opponents is objectified as evil and all means possible are used to destroy the “evil” party. No respect for the humanity of the opponent is allowed.
The appropriate response is to understand and appreciate the function of war. Weaver connects a proper understanding of war to chivalry. Chivalry was an ideal that “even when men fight, they fight as brothers. . .The code of chivalry declared that even if you felt that you have to fight your brother man, this does not mean that you place him outside the pale of humanity, nor does it mean that you may step outside of it yourself.” This respect and limitation of warfare was essential. “[U]nder chivalry there existed a spiritual universal dominion, which enclosed the activity of fighting as the furnace walls enclose the fire.”
(Ch. 7) Gnostics of Education. Education for Weaver is “not merely the imparting of information to the mind but the shaping of the mind and of the personality,” it is “ a training for a way of life,” and it is “intimately related with the preservation of a culture.” As a result, Weaver marks progressive education as one of the most destructive agendas of the modern era. It’s not just a different approach to teaching, its an attempt to create a different type of man. In progressive education (think John Dewey and his progeny), man is made the center of education and the student is given primary focus. “Questions of first and final causes are regarded as not within the scope of education.” The content is not as important as the one learning the content. The child is elevated and the truth to be learned is demoted. Because the child is made the center of education, his “spontaneous desires and unreflective thoughts” are to be given full vent. This sounds a lot like “free education” and other modern learning methods. A byproduct of this is that that “progressive techniques of education have done a good deal to lessen the powers of concentration” of the students (the rise of ADD/ADHD?). Rigor and discipline are sacrificed to the comfort and self-esteem of the student.
In progressive education, the teacher loses authority and becomes a moderator, because “where no conception of a moral absolute exists, authority has no real basis.” This is ultimately a democratizing of education. The master-pupil relationship is not democratic so it must be tossed out and replaced with a more egalitarian model. Weaver shows how destructive it is when the totalitarian concept of democracy creeps in. “Government is not the substance of a people’s life.” And so, the democratic principle, which is fine in politics, should not be the lens through which we view all human relationships. Progressive education is a result of such thinking.
(Ch.8) The Reconsideration of Man. Weaver discusses the demotion of man, “from a place ‘a little lower than the angels’ to one where he is only the king of the beasts.” This is the ultimate result of naturalism and scientism. Where these ideas are internalized, man loses his dignity and honor and becomes a mere instrument. “Not only the character but also the degree of a culture is responsive to the prevailing image of man.”
(Ch. 1) The Image of Culture. Not all cultures are equal; some are better than others. Weaver considers the essence of culture and how to go about assessing a society’s culture. He identifies a “tyrannyzing image” at the center of culture, which stands as the “ideal of its excellence.” The image is “a center of authority from which there proceed subtle and pervasive pressures upon us to conform and to repel the unlike as disruptive.” Culture is “by nature aristocratic,” meaning that all cultures create a “center of value and see to it that the group is oriented toward it.” There is a ranking and ordering around the culture’s ideal.
Weaver warns of a democratic principle outgrowing its function. He returns to this critique throughout the book so it becomes an important point. What he means by this is that the role of democracy has an important role to play, but it is only valuable within the its proper place (politics). “Democracy is not a pattern for all existence any more than a form of economic activity is a substitute for the whole of living.” “When democracy is taken from its proper place and is allowed to fill the entire horizon, it produces an envious hatred not only of all distinction but even of all difference.”
(Ch. 2) Status and Function. By status, Weaver means “the feature of permanence” or the form of something. By function, Weaver means “that of change” or activity. Think of them as standing for the aristocratic (the title and place that people hold in society based on their position/status) and the meritocratic (the capacity for action and the earned reputation of a person). He posits the old South and old North as examples of status-heavy and function-heavy societies, respectively. Weaver argues that there must be a proper balance in a culture’s use of status and function. Status or aristocracy has the danger of degenerating into a caste system or a lifeless nobility; function has the danger of degenerating into utilitarianism where their is no proper moral standard for the kind of achievement that should be rewarded. “In order to have meaningful status we must have something ascending up toward an ultimate source of good.”
(Ch. 3) The Attack Upon Memory. “Between myth and status and memory there is a necessary connection. Clearly people cannot identify or appreciate status unless they can carry with them a memory of society’s hierarchical structure and of the image in response to which it has framed itself. . . Cultural life depends upon remembrance of acknowledged values, and for this reason any signs of a prejudice against memory is a signal of danger.”
(Ch. 4) The Cultural Role of Rhetoric. Weaver’s thesis for this chapter is “that too exclusive reliance upon dialectic is a mistake of the most serious consequence because dialectic alone in the social realm is subversive.” What he means by this is that dialectic “does not tell man what he must do.” It does not give man a direction. It is equated with the scientism of our day which may show how things are related but it does assign value to anything in particular. Rhetoric, on the other hand, “is designed to move men’s feelings in the direction of a goal.” It includes value judgments and persuades others to move toward certain ends. “The conclusion is that a society cannot live without rhetoric. There are some tings in which the group needs to believe which cannot be demonstrated to everyone rationally.” And these are the most important things of a culture.
The upshot of this is important. “The dialectician knows, but he knows in a vacuum; or, he knows, but he is without knowledge of how to act. Unless he is sustained by faith atone end or the other—unless he embraced something before he began the dialectical process or unless he embraces it afterward—he rains an unassimilable social agnostic.” This describes our culture well. Progressing quickly, but to know end in particular.
(Ch. 5) Forms and Social Cruelty. Weaver labels our society as one devoted to “machine culture.” “It would seem. . .that comfort and convenience, to which we should add a love of mobility, have made themselves a new Moloch; and the idol demands of his worshippers not only the annual toll of life but also a restlessness and superficiality of spirit.” He labels our culture as one of the “most brutal cultures that ever existed,” yet we hardly even notice it. Each year we sacrifice human life to the god of comfort and convenience and we don’t even question it. This can be seen in numerous ways—Weaver focuses on automobiles and the annual lives lost or paralyzed from them, without question. Another obvious connection would be abortion, which is even more direct; it is the literal sacrifice of life for the sake of comfort and convenience.
The answer is simple. “[T]he road away from idolatry remains the same as before: it lies in respect for the struggling dignity of man and for his orientation toward something higher than himself which he has not created.”
(Ch. 6) A Dialectic on Total War. In this chapter Weaver discusses warfare and its growth from a principled sphere to a total enterprise. From the battlefields where the rules of war were (at least predominantly) understood and respected and the combatants engaged with one another and not citizens, to the day and age where atomic bombs can be dropped and can wipe out whole civilizations, to a time where cities, including women and children, can be destroyed, and where all is justified in light of the end in view. From this evolution, we can easily see that we have lost our understanding of war. Means and ends are not properly respected so we see the ends justifying the means. We see this not only in war, but in politics and other fields too. The opponents is objectified as evil and all means possible are used to destroy the “evil” party. No respect for the humanity of the opponent is allowed.
The appropriate response is to understand and appreciate the function of war. Weaver connects a proper understanding of war to chivalry. Chivalry was an ideal that “even when men fight, they fight as brothers. . .The code of chivalry declared that even if you felt that you have to fight your brother man, this does not mean that you place him outside the pale of humanity, nor does it mean that you may step outside of it yourself.” This respect and limitation of warfare was essential. “[U]nder chivalry there existed a spiritual universal dominion, which enclosed the activity of fighting as the furnace walls enclose the fire.”
(Ch. 7) Gnostics of Education. Education for Weaver is “not merely the imparting of information to the mind but the shaping of the mind and of the personality,” it is “ a training for a way of life,” and it is “intimately related with the preservation of a culture.” As a result, Weaver marks progressive education as one of the most destructive agendas of the modern era. It’s not just a different approach to teaching, its an attempt to create a different type of man. In progressive education (think John Dewey and his progeny), man is made the center of education and the student is given primary focus. “Questions of first and final causes are regarded as not within the scope of education.” The content is not as important as the one learning the content. The child is elevated and the truth to be learned is demoted. Because the child is made the center of education, his “spontaneous desires and unreflective thoughts” are to be given full vent. This sounds a lot like “free education” and other modern learning methods. A byproduct of this is that that “progressive techniques of education have done a good deal to lessen the powers of concentration” of the students (the rise of ADD/ADHD?). Rigor and discipline are sacrificed to the comfort and self-esteem of the student.
In progressive education, the teacher loses authority and becomes a moderator, because “where no conception of a moral absolute exists, authority has no real basis.” This is ultimately a democratizing of education. The master-pupil relationship is not democratic so it must be tossed out and replaced with a more egalitarian model. Weaver shows how destructive it is when the totalitarian concept of democracy creeps in. “Government is not the substance of a people’s life.” And so, the democratic principle, which is fine in politics, should not be the lens through which we view all human relationships. Progressive education is a result of such thinking.
(Ch.8) The Reconsideration of Man. Weaver discusses the demotion of man, “from a place ‘a little lower than the angels’ to one where he is only the king of the beasts.” This is the ultimate result of naturalism and scientism. Where these ideas are internalized, man loses his dignity and honor and becomes a mere instrument. “Not only the character but also the degree of a culture is responsive to the prevailing image of man.”
May 4, 2022
This is the third of Weaver's books, and the third that I have read. This is a man who thinks along the same lines that I do. I would have loved to have had a conversation with him. He is philosophical, and highly rational in the sense of clearly mapping out his line of reasoning. I find his thoughts a pleasure to read, and to contemplate. I only wish he had written more. He died too soon.
Read
November 21, 2009None
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews