Against Respectability
Against Respectability
Christians and Nietzscheans agree: aristocrats of the soul must stand alone
What, in the devil's name, is the use of respectability, with never so many gigs and silver spoons, if thou inwardly art the pitifulness of all men?
—Thomas Carlyle
You need to be less respectable.
Our instinct to be respectable is understandable, and indeed - in virtuous times - healthy. But these are not virtuous times.
This instinct can be manipulated. The desire to be ‘respectable’ is a desire to act in a disciplined moral fashion, yes; but also it must be recognized that respectability is a concept that necessitates gaining the respect of others.
It is thus not a desire that is fully internally directed, like the discipline advocated by the stoics; nor is it derived uniquely from a personal communion with God, like grace. It is a fundamentally social phenomenon.
Respectability is derived from being seen to maximally embody consensus morality. It is the satisfaction of knowing that those around you approve of who you choose to be. Your ability to be respectable is thus dependent on how other fallen creatures perceive you.
In healthy times, it incentivizes men to act in unison with their brethren. It is a useful pressure in faithful societies in which the consensus community morality is aligned with the transcendent will of God.
But in times of madness, the desire for respectability must be cast off. Unless you have the strength to do this, you will end up like the many ‘conservative’ figures who bow to social pressure, and advocate for ‘progressive’ insanities in order to lap up praise and get invited to all the prestigious events and institutions.
In times like these, the man of will must be prepared to walk alone.
A commitment to respectability tethers you to the consensus position, even when that consensus is rudderless and drifting towards doom. In these times, consensus is cowardice.
But standing alone is not easy. This reality is what A.W. Tozer was describing in his sermon ‘The Saint Must Walk Alone’:
The pain of loneliness arises from the constitution of our nature. God made us for each other. The desire for human companionship is completely natural and right. The loneliness of the Christian results from his walk with God in an ungodly world, a walk that must often take him away from the fellowship of good Christians as well as from that of the unregenerate world. His Godgiven instincts cry out for companionship with others of his kind, others who can understand his longings, his aspirations, his absorption in the love of Christ; and because within his circle of friends there are so few who share his inner experiences he is forced to walk alone.
This pain can be politically weaponized in order to crush dissent against totalitarian moral regimes. The right-wing English philosopher Jonathan Bowden identified how the anguish of isolation has resulted in the lost plight of the modern British conservative:
British people have been very heroic when their establishments order them to be.
They find it very difficult to self-start. They find it very difficult to stand out. They find it very difficult to stand alone - particularly when they've caught social disapproval, or cultural disapproval, or ideological disapproval.
There seems to be a great individual heroism in our group, but there seems to be an element of moral timidity and extreme conservatism and conformity - and people are traumatized by liberal ideas, and feel that they can't stand against them.
It's what political correctness is; it's just a grammar that polices people in their own minds. Most people can't get out of that. And until you break that down other forces won't emerge.
How must we react to our instinct for worldly conformity in degraded times? Nietzsche’s response rings prideful but true:
The Great Man... is colder, harder, less hesitating, and without fear of 'opinion'; he lacks the virtues that accompany respect and 'respectability,' and altogether everything that is the 'virtue of the herd.' If he cannot lead, he goes alone... There is a solitude within him that is inaccessible to praise or blame.
This boldness of speech is - and always has been - a quintessentially aristocratic perspective. As Camille Paglia notes:
All fear of 'offensive' speech is bourgeois and reactionary. Historically, profane or bawdy language was common in both the upper and the lower classes, who lived together in rural areas amid the untidy facts of nature. Notions of propriety and decorum come to the fore in urbanized periods ruled by an expanding middle class, which is obsessed with cleanliness, respectability, and conformism.
In the modern managerial state, this stifling middle class attitude - designed to keep all the cogs in the professional bureaucratic regime in their place, cut off from contact with the disruptive power of the Divine will - is pervasive. But we can and must escape it.
From where do we derive our morality if not from those that stand next to us?
That which is above, not beside. Tozer offers a profound reflection on Abraham’s solitude:
Again, Abraham had Sarah and Lot, as well as many servants and herdmen, but who can read his story and the apostolic comment upon it without sensing instantly that he was a man "whose soul was alike a star and dwelt apart"? As far as we know not one word did God ever speak to him in the company of men. Face down he communed with his God, and the innate dignity of the man forbade that he assume this posture in the presence of others. How sweet and solemn was the scene that night of the sacrifice when he saw the lamps of fire moving between the pieces of offering. There alone with a horror of great darkness upon him he heard the voice of God and knew that he was a man marked for divine favor.
This is why I am skeptical of the nostalgic idolization of 1950s Christian America that I often see in our circles. Not because that common expression of religiosity was not wonderful - it was - but because it was reflective of a particular historical moment that resulted from conditions that I think are unlikely to re-appear in our near future.
We must be prepared for chaos, not a brief moment of wonderful national harmony, even if that harmony is our ultimate goal. For now, respectability will not save you. You must carry your cross alone.
Remember Matthew 5:10-12:
Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you.
If you enjoyed this essay, please consider supporting this project by leaving a like or upgrading to paid. It’s hugely appreciated.
Sic transit imperium,
Johann
Excellent and a convincing argument on what is required of us in these times. And yet, lately I wrestle with the realization behind the truths, “We become what we fear” and “Your greatest strength is also your greatest weakness”. The challenge lay in casting off respectability just enough to see change in our world--without ourselves becoming the very demons we seek to counter. The Crusades come to mind. An anchor, a bellwether, and a compass are required...and each of these are found in faith, hope, and love.
As a friend recently said to me (paraphrasing): if the culture is going to act insane, then we should feel free to make fun of the culture. I do this on here, and I do it often with profane language. Excellent piece here. Thank you.