In the spirit of enquiry, this is Shakespeare's argument for hierarchy ('degree').
Take but degree away, untune that string
And hark what discord follows
- Ulysses in Troilus & Cressida Act I Sc 3
Of course, he lived in a very different age: in Shakespeare ordinary people ("rude mechanicals")are there for comic relief, while the kings and princes play out the real drama. The word "freedom" is never used positively anywhere in his work - preservation of the larger order is the key virtue.
Even so, I'm sure we can all feel the force of what Ulysses is saying here. Comments, anyone?
Friday, September 01, 2006
Order and Hierarchy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Troilus and Cressida has a good deal about degrees. For instance,
'The heavens themselves, the planets and this centre
Observe degree, priority, and place...'
And,
'O! When degree is shak'd,
Which is the ladder to all high designs,
The enterprise is sick.'
On searching Google, I found endless examples of degree, mostly of an academic nature, although there are a number of uses for the word, e.g., a degree of Fahrenheit, meaning a specified measure, a degree of excellence, the third degree, and so on.
There is a natural and ordered hierarchy, of course, as illustrated in the food chain. The planets don't suddenly go round a different way, bluebells start to eat foxes, or the moon turn to cheese.
But what are you trying to say here? That everyone should keep to an appointed station? If that were to prevent presumption and other fallacies it might be arguable, but who is to judge?
Captain Cook came from humble beginnings and Nelson from a country parsonage - they certainly got on the ladder to high designs. They respected the ladder but it was made available to them, even though their beginnings were modest.
The most notable example of overturning degree is that of Jesus Christ. The son of a carpenter, his path as the Son of God led to crucifixion.
Now that caused considerable discord which echoes throughout the centuries.
Did Shakespeare get it wrong or are we speaking of different levels?
An interesting subject.
Also in St Luke it is said, 'He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.' At the same time he scatters the proud in the imagination of their hearts, fills the hungry with good things and sends the rich empty away.
Bit of a scorcher all that.
Also, how does degree fit with Advaita?
"The humble sage, by virtue of true knowledge, sees with equal vision a learned and gentle brahmana, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater [outcaste]."
Gita 5, 18
I think the discrimination is necessary to see in what circumstances is the hierachy necessary. Hierachy is necessary to maintain structure and efficiency within an organisation. Things would be chaos without it. That's fine. So could we say what is the jurisdiction of hierachy? And where should it not intervene?
Just (yet) another comment. I disagree that Shakespeare only promotes hierachy with kings and princes and uses the common folk for comedy. You've forgotten one essential hierachy defying character: the fool. Is he mad, or is he wiser than the king? He also seems to be the only one who can point out that the king is full of pride, has 'lost it', and has made dubious decisions, all this without having his head cut off.
" This is a brave night to cool a courtesan.
I'll speak a prophecy ere I go:
'When priests are more in word than matter,
when brewers mar their malt with water,
when nobles are their tailors' tutors,
no heretics burned, but wenches' suitors,
when every case in law is right,
no squire in debt, nor no poor knight,
when slanders do not live in tongues,
nor cutpurses come not to throngs,
when usurers tell their gold i' the field,
and bawds and whores do churches build --
then shall the realm of Albion
come to great confusion.
Then comes the time, who lives to see 't,
that going shall be used with feet.'
This prophecy Merlin shall make, for I live before his time."
~ King Lear
I don't think the point was clear enough.
The fool in Shakespeare's plays is the exception that proves the rule. There is no way that the fool is going to become the king; he is there as an escape-valve, nothing more. Twelfth Night is a "feast of fools" - a night when the natural order is temporarily upset. Such events are common in highly structured societies - but they don't attack the structure. The Gita quotation is interesting, but it didn't exactly bring the caste system tumbling down, did it?
Jesus, on the other hand, did attack the structure of his society, represented by the Pharisees. The Upanishads were also, I think, in some ways an attack on an artificial hierarchy of wisdom - witness the debate between Yajnyawalkya and Shakalya, or the former's critique of Janaka's numerous teachers.
What I was trying to get at was the importance that we put upon formal hierarchy in the School. By "we" I include myself. Like anyone else, I value the experience of surrender. Like anyone else, I know the release one gets on a residential.
Gitalover related recently how someone asked whether it was time to review the principles of the School; the response he got was reportedly that "they have served us well" - in other words, "no, we are not going to open that up for discussion". Something in me finds this abhorrent; something else in me fears the discussion itself.
If we're going to open things up to reason, and question authority, we will end up with a very different School. Will it be better or worse?
It's quite true that you may overturn the barrel while looking for the mouldy apple at the bottom of it (won't say 'rotten', wouldn't be true in this case). And you may then end up with something that you don't like at all.
Is it reasonable always to follow tradition? And in the case of School organisation or aims - that 'tradition' is so recent it can hardly be called by that name.
So to take Gitalover's report concerning the principles of the School - they are clearly out of date, having been formulated before the School assumed its current quest. So why not renew them? Yes, they may have 'served well' but do they now fit the bill?
The School does not live in a bubble, although it sometimes seems that it tries its best to do so, and a rational renewal must be a reasonable and intelligent undertaking.
I don't think I'm expressing myself very clearly either. Probably because I had no clear idea where I was going with this.
I think this all reflects back on an earlier conversation about inspiration. And does a hierachy allow this? If you ever go to Rosslyn Chapel near Edinburgh there is the story, inscribed in the stone, of the master and the apprentice. The story goes that the master mason carved the first of two main pillars then went on a journey to clarify the design of the second. In the meantime the apprentice had a 'vision' of what the second pillar should look like, followed his intuition, and carved it. The apprentice pillar is a much more ornate, subtle and interesting carving than the master mason's pillar. The master returned and on seeing what had occurred killed the apprentice. Was this because of jealousy or because of the impetuousness of the apprentice in breaking the order of an established tradition?
I'm not promoting that hierachy can be done away with and I share the concerns of others. The central question here appears to be, "How can hierachy and individual inspiration co-exist?". If the hierachy is based upon true principle then any deviation from this will be seen as threatening and perhaps rightly so. On the other hand, if a hierachy is closed and genuine inspiration (perhaps the will of the Absolute arising from avyakta?) is not allowed to surface, what happens then?
The question about caste is an interesting one. Maybe I'm being idealistic, but coming back to this whole question about temperament: if the individual followed what was true in their heart and acted from it, then would a natural order arise? Some are practical and would prefer to do practical things. Some are men of knowledge and would want to study etc. Some are creative and would want to paint, write etc. No doubt there is an infinite variety of cross-over and all functions in a society would be catered for. Seems to me that there can a hierachy or artifical structure that impedes this (ref V's Cuba post), or that a 'structure' can arise that is natural based upon individuals working from what arises in their own nature, inspiration.
One of the big problems seems to be, and perhaps this is another topic; people of a particular temperament or nature can become very successful in their pursuit, then become dominant, believing their way is the only way and through the force of their dominance, influence others. If others are not vigilant they forget themselves and bow to the dominance, not the inspiration. Then there is imbalance.
There is another lurking, related question here. I think there needs to be a balance of conservatism and liberalism in a society and that either extreme is unnatural. How to balance the two? Structure that does not kill creativity? 'Freedom' that does not unyoke itself from dharma?
Did I post this? (below)
"It is like the musical system in India, which is not so rigidly fixed as western music. Our composers give a certain definite outline, a system of melody and rhythmic arrangement, and within a certain limit the player can improvise upon it. He must be one with the law of that particular melody, and then he can give spontaneous expression to his musical feeling within the prescribed regulation. We praise the composer for his genius in creating a foundation along with a superstructure of melodies, but we expect from the player his own skill in the creation of variations of melodic flourish and ornamentation. In creation we follow the central law of existence, but if we do not cut ourselves adrift from it, we can have sufficient freedom within the limits of our personality for the fullest self-expression."
~ Rabindranth Tagore
Maybe one of the key motivations for this blog is the sense that, as Tagore puts it, India has a system that is "not so rigidly fixed".
Jaya Jaitly, who was in charge of the Indian artists at Art in Action this year (and who was, I think, probably the most impressive person at the event) spoke about the caste system, perhaps as an ideal. She said that one of the problems her craftsmen had in India was that as physical workers they were regarded as Shudras, and therefore at the bottom of the pile. According to Jaya, however, the caste system was originally a 'vertical' division, rather than a 'horizontal' one, distinguishing between natures, and not between degrees.
This must be why renewal is always necessary and resting on laurels a dead and dusty exercise.
Your example of Jaya Jaitly's comments on caste (if true) shows only too clearly how a system designed to reflect individuals' natures can become cast in stone, and therefore deflected from its original purpose.
It happens to all institutions as they mature. There's nothing untoward in it happening to the School, it's entirely natural that it should.
The question is therefore how best to address this.
Post a Comment