2iii. A Broken Perspective – Conceptual Breakdown

One of my most important inspirations...

So where exactly does all this get us? Is there any possibility of any kind of definition that covers even that extremely cursory and messy overview in which the way the concept is used?

Could there be a common element to all the above conceptions? There are so many contradictions it seems unlikely. The term is also used in such different contexts that a child could be ‘corrupted’ in one area, but not in another; both innocent and not innocent in different contexts. A child who is too young to vote but old enough to be imprisoned. A child who is morally innocent while sexually knowing. This happens.

Incidentally, my dictionary defines innocence as: “Freedom from sin, guilt or moral wrong in general; moral purity.” No mention of the ‘good’ in innocence, or original sin, or sexuality. It’s not even obvious if the dictionary meant they are morally pure and exemplary, or amoral and incapable of being moral. No real help there then.

So it seems looking to literature and philosophy is unlikely to bring us to a consensus on what innocence actually is. Like God and like art, we get pictures. Beautiful that they are, seemingly what we never get is clarity.

However could we put this down to changing contexts? Certainly, the world in which Freud was writing in held childhood in a drastically different way than would’ve been the case when Genesis was written. Could we then sidestep this problem by finding how we think about the concept of innocence in the here and now?

Thankfully this is easy to find out. The internet opens us before us with every possible modern day usage of the term. To see if there is a dominant conception of the term in every day usage we can just see what people are saying.

To this end, I carried out two very quick, loose bits of research to see whether we might get an indicator. Firstly I’m going to look at how The Guardian newspaper has been using the word. Secondly, and for the most unbiased approach to internet ramblings I can think of, I’m going to type in ‘innocence’ into the search engine in Twitter and see what I get out of the first 120 tweets. This will give us enough of an idea to ask one simple questions – is the term used in any kind of consistent way?

After spending several seconds typing in the word into The Guardian site’s search engine, my extensive search bought up over 7,500 articles. I looked at the last six weeks of articles where the term ‘innocence’ was used explicitly (not the most in-depth research methodology ever conceived, but it should give us an idea).

By far the most common usage (54 uses) in the paper was innocence used as a legal term; innocence being ‘declared’ in most cases. This was followed by innocence as some sort of description of a person, varying slightly from naivety to playfulness or creativity – a description, that was never clear in even its own context (16 uses). This was followed by innocence used in relation to childhood (7 uses), or as a synonym for ignorance (5 uses). There were even a few cultural references – including a reference to William Golding, an article by Phillip Pullman and, rather brilliantly, the eighth hit I got was a reference to a film I’m going to make a big deal of later in this exploration…

Let’s look at the tweets before we prod at these results; again, a very quick and simple search to keep the randomness of the sample. Using Tweetdeck; I looked at the first 120 mentions of the word ‘innocence’ (was planning on 100, over counted)…

The first thing to hit me was how much more difficult it was to put the use of the term into some kind of category. True, nearly half (49) uses of the word were in its legal sense which tarries with the Guardian usage. But after that it all gets a little more difficult. Oblique cultural references were reasonably common (12 mentions and I‘d heard of none of them, but that may say more about me and the average Twitter user than anything else). There were 10 references to the character trait of playfulness or naivety as above, and 9 mentions of innocence as a synonym for purity or faultlessness.

However the second biggest grouping was written down as ‘??’ on my list – as the references were too vague, oblique or confusing to make any real sense of them. Just to assure you this isn’t just the fault of Twitter, let me show you a few choice picks of the 19 I couldn’t make head nor tail of:

 Why do we force ourselves to hang so desperately onto those last shreds of innocence left in our souls?

 There’s something beautiful about watching my niece interact with my cat. Innocence and love at it’s finest.

 there used to be more innocence. Oh no. Wait. It was ME that used to have more innocence ….

 I’ve given up on the innocence you left behind.

 it was all such innocence in comparison.

 The common grief of children protecting their parents from reality. It is bitter for the young to see what awful innocence adults grow into.

 Who are you gonna be? When you’re on your knees who do you believe? Fear is a lonely man. You’ve been given innocence.

 I think innocence is something that adults project upon children that’s not really there.

 Now I can see what a couple of them are driving at; particularly the last one – but what are they actually saying? It is seemingly something spiritual yet social, playful yet serious, something given and taken, something illusory yet real.

On the whole I think it’s safe to say that this is even more confusing than the Romantics.

So does this get us anywhere? We can perhaps draw a line under a couple of points.

Clearly, there is a stable usage of the term in a legal sense – and this is a sense which can be extended to include some kind of moral or social wrongdoing. This usage was used consistently across both samples and seems unproblematic. We therefore can make perfect sense of statements like “Emily was innocent of the crime of necromancy” or “Tommi was an innocent bystander”. So we have one meaning of the word innocence without problem – but of course, it wasn’t this usage we are really interested in.

The second way we can get innocence is to work is as a synonym for a less controversial term; its exact meaning varying by context. If a word such as ‘ignorant, ‘naïve’, ‘playfulness’, ‘joy’, or ’pure’ can replace the reference to innocence – then fine, we can put one category of usage to one side. This does however, make the word basically a frill of the English language – poetic but pointless.

Beyond that it starts getting very tricky. The way the word is often used links it to several key other concepts – including the legal / moral sense, and the ignorant / naïve / playful / joyful / pure sense – but also childhood, asexuality, powerlessness, vulnerability, beauty, wisdom and more subtleties besides. It seems that although innocence can be used as a synonym for any of these words – it is extensively used as a term which hints at these things in such a vague, oblique or paradoxical way that it is impossible to pin down its exact meaning. It is, at times, a phase of life, a type of experience or a description of a person. In short, the word breaks down – even in every day conversational usage – and becomes abstract.

This short study tells us little more than there is no obvious answer. There is no ‘correct’ way to use the term, or to think about the concept. Innocence is, it seems, poetic – and to try and ascertain its true meaning is, basically, flawed. There is no true meaning to be found. Yet it is this conception of innocence I will dedicate this work to.

A quite legitimate question raises its ugly head at this point. Why, if conceptual analysis is effectively pointless, try and pull any further meaning from such a term? Why is such an unhelpful word used so much in certain contexts? And – why do we think we know what it means when we read or write it, when we can’t define it?

The problem is – and this is why this work is being done – is that the concept is too important for us to ignore. The fact that it is used so often begs the question of just what it is we are talking about – and the fact that the notion, in some configuration, recurs so often in literature and art hints there is a significant truth hidden behind the confusion.

What we might be reaching towards, albeit blindly and inconsistently, is the main focus of this investigation – and after spending the last few pages systematically ripping the concept to shreds, and showing endless varying conceptions, I plan to offer yet another conception of innocence. This will draw on many different influences; this is not an original thought but rather a collage of perceptions from music, film, philosophy and literature – and drawing especially from one crazed genius called Friedrich Nietzsche. This version of the concept will attempt to be strong enough and useful enough for us to make sense of what innocence is in all its uses noted above – and also attempt to account for our confused, yet strangely, obsessive regard to the notion. What’s more, once this idea has been laid out, much more will be able to be seen as a consequence of it – and will show the concept to be of significant importance in terms of how we perceive childhood, morality and our lives as a whole.

There is in fact, a philosophy and ethics of innocence hidden in the confusion.

But I have not yet written one word in innocence’s defence, and there’s more to say on how we get innocence wrong; a fresh beginning is required, as it always is.

 

 

2ii. A Broken Perspective – A Little of the Romantic

Rousseau proved to be a huge inspiration on the writers of the Romantic era, where this conception of a natural and positive innocence became a central theme in much Western literature into the 20th century. Also worth noting is that the influence of John Locke was significant at the time, who was the first to abandon a priori (intuitive) knowledge, and claimed that all of our knowledge comes directly from “in one word, experience.” Therefore childhood is the prime example of the tabula rasa (the mind as an ‘empty slate’ at birth), and Locke wrote his principles of education based on this notion. For some authors ‘innocence’ became a term used to challenge this materialist and rationalist view of the world, and so it became associated with a priori, natural knowledge. Put simply, innocence, arguably a special case of ignorance, was becoming associated with knowledge (sigh).

There are many examples of this view, though there is a lot that could be said about the variations between the various key writers in the Romantic era. To take one example; Blake, most notably in his Songs of Innocence and Experience, wrote of the positive aspects of a child’s perception and imagination. Unusually for the Romantics there is also an interesting anticipation of Freud, as in Infant Joy and The Blossom there is a definite sexual element to their innocence. An important distinction with Blake is that unlike many Romantic writers, he does not see innocence as something for regret; experience is necessary for continued development, and ultimately to be ‘born again’ – a Christian influence, coming from the words of Jesus who came out with lines like: “Except ye become as a little child; except ye born again.” I’m not getting to the sexuality of innocence yet though – a can of worms best left to lie for now.

Coleridge was similar in his views, seeing an internal spiritual development to children, and saw innocence as a capacity to feel and imagine. This innocence is undoubtedly positive but is seen to be inevitably lost by societal influence and experience. As a very-useful-writer-for-this-topic, Coveney puts it: “The corrupting serpent lies in the impediments of society, frustrating the enjoyment of his innocence.”

Wordsworth however, focused much more on the psychological and moral aspects of children. He took an unusually philosophical view, drawing influence from Locke, but saw this tabula rasa innocence as visionary and as the ‘seed time of the soul’. This view also shares similarities with Rousseau, as the whole focus of the education of Emile is for him to develop into a strong adult. Wordsworth’s view was that he did see childhood as important, but only as a stepping-stone towards adulthood.

Dickens’ conception was different again, seeing innocence in a much darker and more sentimental way. Perhaps for the first time, in his writings the loss of innocence became something to regret from the adult perspective. For Dickens, innocence was a symbol in the struggle of good against evil, and much of his work explores the innocent child and their struggle against not just corrupted, but genuinely evil characters. The writings of Henry James were similar, in such works as What Masie Knew, the child is surrounded by immorality and depravity but the child remains morally strong and good.

Lewis Carroll, and others such as D.H Lawrence, developed the idea of innocence as both a dark and nostalgic concept. In Alice in Wonderland, the end of the dream-like state actually results in the symbol of death in the “dead leaves that had fluttered down from the trees upon her face…” This wretched nostalgia was taken to its extreme by J.M Barrie, who obsessively wrote on the darkness of lost innocence. Alongside others such as Hugh Walpole and Forest Reid, his work is obsessive to the point of being – quite frankly – disturbingly sexual, as well as being very dark. As Coveney writes on Peter Pan: “Barrie’s story is not even so much the tale of a boy who didn’t want to grow up, but, carrying the sentiment to its deadly conclusion, of the boy who wishes so painfully that he need never have been born.”

In a few short paragraphs we seem to be a long way from Eden. And none of it’s making much consistent sense.

In Wordsworth, innocence is something to be left behind, in Barrie, something to be mourned. In Blake, it is the capacity for imagination that is important; in James it is the moral strength. Some writers support innocence for its own sake, others see it as an important stage to adulthood. This variety in conception can perhaps be explained by two key factors, firstly the psychological condition of the author writing on it; J.M. Barrie and Lewis Caroll’s reputation proceeds them. Secondly, the concept of innocence was frequently used as a means to demonstrate a wider social point. This meant that although innocence seemed to be a universal concept, its meaning varied hugely depending on what it was supporting. Coveney (my authority on all things childhood literature) highlights:

“Frequently, indeed, as in the case of Dickens, there was an amazing inconsistency within the work of the same author. The child is now a symbol of growth and development, and now a symbol of retreat into personal regression and self pity.”

However the Romantic writers did perhaps hold one element in common; the reaction against the Calvinist view that children are naturally sinful. This view was abundant in Victorian society at the time, and many Romantic writers saw this as the corruption of society. Much of Dickens highlighted the terrible conditions of children at the time, and Kingsley highlighted this view, such as in Alton Locke, where through the eyes of her puritanical characters she describes children as “of wrath and of the devil.” As Butler, another commentator, puts it: “The mere fact of being young at all has something with it that savours more or less distinctly of the nature of sin…” Read the papers and it’s easy to see this perception alive and well.

Perhaps the best-known example of this kind of perspective is William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, which needs little explanation. The end of the novel clearly demonstrates the wretched state of the children, and the glory of their adult savior with “a white-topped cap, and above the green shade of the peak was a crown, an anchor, gold foliage.” The point could not be made more explicit as: “Ralph wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of man’s heart.”

However it was the advent of Freud that firmly took the concept of innocence away from the idealism and symbolism in literature and theology of the 18th and 19th centuries, and into the scientific realm of psychology of the 20th century. It could be said that children’s natural sexuality and the unconscious power of the Id (in other words, a child’s animal instincts) pointed to the idea of original sin, but Freud did not take into account any of the Romantic conceptions, as his investigation was scientific. What could be described as ‘innocence’ in Freud is complex, but what is clear is that Freud scientifically moved past the idealized conceptions of the Romantics, and he has been described by some as the destroyer of innocence for so ruthlessly destroying the Romantic idealism of the innocent child. His scientific discoveries seemed to contradict many of the claims that the Romantics made and it is this “unforgivable” (Coveney again) undermining of the Romantic view, which called into question all the naturalistic views of innocence – particularly the amoral and asexual assumption of childhood – which provokes the question whether there was any substance to the Romantic conception at all.

Even more contrasting perceptions on innocence in literature can be found in more recent days. The contrast with the Christian view of natural innocence can be seen in Philip Pullman’s recent, glorious, epic Dark Materials Trilogy. I will not attempt to delve into the full depth of the novels here (fun though that would be); it is sufficient to highlight Pullman’s continual attack on instutionalised religion. Lyra, the heroine, is the second incarnation of Eve and is destined to Fall; to the ruin of the world, in the eyes of the evilly portrayed church. Her Fall, when it comes, does indeed destroy the wicked church, and in the process also kills God (a move which is wonderfully Nietzschen). Central to the novel is the concept of Dust, seen as original sin by the church, but in actuality is the life force of the universe. The church’s view of children is the Romantic view – children do not attract Dust until maturity, whereupon they become sinful, and the church is seen to do many evil acts to prevent this from happening. As Dust is actually positive, Lyra’s reaching of maturity, sexual awakening and the Fall are positive, which is a clear case that innocence (despite its numerous cognitive abilities highlighted in Lyra and Will’s capacities) is still inferior to adulthood. This complex, but unique example turns the whole Christian based view of natural innocence on its head, and highlights how differently innocence can be seen, even with the same assumption of a ‘natural’ innocence.

To provide yet another contradiction; as opposed to natural innocence, philosophers in the 20th century began to speak of a socially constructed innocence. This move partially originates from reactions of Freud; if children had no natural innocence in the Romantic sense, then the Romantic conception must be a socially constructed one, which could then be criticized for being over sentimentalised and idealized. The Aries thesis of childhood, which stated that childhood was a social invention of the modern era, was also important; if childhood, as an idea, was invented, then undoubtedly so was innocence. However, several modern-day philosophers have rejected this view, saying it is only the conception that has changed, and not the concept itself. If innocence is socially constructed, like any such concept it is inevitably going to vary from culture to culture, making any kind of universal definition very difficult. This led to innocence being used in a much more relative sense in the latter part of the 20th century, and the fog of its usage thickened.

 

 

Challenge the Devil’s Advocate! – An Argument against Spirit

 

Right then, I’m going to put my neck on the line.

This is an invite to everybody who believes in any type of Spirit, be you a believer in a fundamental truth kind-of religion, believe in a personal God, or just believe in some kind of ‘energy’ or ‘otherness’ that extends beyond the human condition. I’m going to stick my neck out and say why I think you’re wrong.

That’s right. I am that much of a killjoy.

I am, however, coming at this philosophically – I have an argument (that is fairly simple) and I want to see whether it works; and the way to do that is stick it out there and systemically try and destroy it. To that end, I’m going to be staggeringly arrogant for present purposes, playing advocate to the devil (though I guess I might accused of that anyway) – but then I’ll join in with any interested readers to try and take it apart. Then I’ll see if I can defend it in a blaze of schizophrenia.

So the challenge is laid down. Let’s see if we can pull my idea apart.

So let us hand it over to the devil’s right hand man:

*          *          *

Spirit (including all religious or spiritual experience) either doesn’t exist, or it’s completely unimportant.

Firstly, what do we mean when we say something ‘exists’? We mean that we can in some way experience it – either directly by use of our senses, or indirectly by its empirically consistent effects. For example we know a pair of plastic devil horns exist because there they are, on my head; I can see them, feel their pointiness. We also know wind exists because we can see what it affects directly – I can see my midnight-black cape blowing around. We also know atoms exist because thanks to use of technology we are able to see them. And we know more abstract concepts like ‘love’, ‘hate’, ‘friendship’, ‘society’ and ‘pain- from-fiery-hell-flames’ exist because we can recognise them from signs and pointers that we directly perceive – we recognise the obsessive behaviour of love, the fairly similar obsessive behaviour of hate, the screams of fiery hell-pain, and so on…

Spirit does not exist on any of these levels. It cannot be directly perceived, nor can we obviously see its impact, like we can with wind. We’re not able to find any evidence for spirit scientifically, nor can we recognise its impact in any consistent manner – as any evidence presented of spirit influencing something concrete can be explained away with more verifiable explanations.

Therefore if some sort of ‘otherness’ of spirit exists it is completely beyond our usual understanding of something existing. Using the concept in a strict sense then, is to limit it to the realm of human experience. We cannot say something exists in a rigorous sense if it is completely beyond all our experience – as, after all, how would we know if it existed or not? This is the first alternative (or prong, of my pointy devil horn of an argument).

The second prong is to say, OK, let’s assume spirit exists in the weak sense – that it occupies some plane of existence completely beyond the sphere of human experience and only impacts on the human mind by way of an intuitive subjective experience that cannot be shared or verified. At best, we can experience Spirit like we experience memory or fantasy.

So the experience itself is fairly intangible. It is a completely vacant experience for us – how can it have any content if it is beyond the realm of human experience – all it can do is point towards something, suggest a shape of something, or give a sign to something. A spiritual experience is then reliant on a person’s creative interpretation to give it any content. A Christian might hear it as the voice of God. A Buddhist might feel it as a state of tranquillity. A devil-worshipper might see it as me. An atheist might see it simply as a random thought.

So then what is a spiritual experience? If it exists at all it is a void in human understanding, filled up by creative human interpretation. Religion tries to make this meaningful by referring us back to holy books and so on – but in itself it does not have any content – or significance.

How could it have much significance? Does it involve anything that we care about, that we put our efforts into? Does Spirit influence your relationships? Your love? Your children? Your job? How could it do – its existence is completely beyond such human-relative concerns. It is, like a fantasy, a private experience that has no bearing on the reality around you. Like fantasy, it might be beautiful, moving, thought-provoking; a creation of the utmost beauty and genius – but such things come from you – not from Spirit. Spirit isn’t in fact needed for it.

So even if Spirit exists on the verge of our consciousness, what of it? It can tell us nothing. Spirit either is effectively an empty irrelevance, useful only for the fruits of human creation – or it doesn’t exist at all! <evil laughter>

Ha ha ha ha!!!!! I have foiled you all!!!! You can never defeat ME!!!!!! Mutual respect, even if you disagree, mutual respect… we prick you, we prick you, we prick you…

*          *          *

Sorry, I think the devil’s advocate got a hold of me rather strongly there… I don’t think its water-tight but he is rather convincing (apart from the evil laugh anyway, that was very unconvincing. And what kind of devil has plastic horns?)

We’re not going to let him win, are we? Come on, you armies of light, let’s give him what we’ve got! 😉

Dx

(NOTE FOR STUPID PEOPLE – I’m not actually condoning the devil here… let’s just play along… )

Why are we here?

And for once I don’t mean it in the existential sense! I mean why are YOU, dear reader, here?

Last night saw some heated debate on the blog leading to unintentional upset and withdrawal from one of our contributors. I had hoped by now that the purpose of this blog had been made clear, but it seems that there is still some misunderstanding, so here I am, once again, explaining our position.

This is a debating site seeking to examine and de-construct Christianity and some of it’s tenants. We come from a position of non-Christian and secular thought but invite both opposing and supportive contributions from our readers. We present our opinions on topics important to us but are prepared to have our beliefs challenged, just as equally we intend to challenge others.

The definition of the word debate:

To consider something; deliberate.

To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.

To engage in a formal discussion or argument.

Yes Christian thought will come under pretty heavy fire from us – I thought that was probably obvious from the subject matter of the blog. But it will be considered and not simply dismissed. If we disagree we will always explain why. No we don’t expect to agree on many topics. That is ok to us. For us agreement is unimportant. To us the discussion is everything. A way to challenge and be challenged.

But I stress: we don’t ask anyone to abandon their beliefs – merely to defend them. To explain WHY they believe as they do.

Again I stress: we do not dismiss how important these beliefs may be to you or how fundamental they are to your life and your thinking. Merely to ask you again to think about WHY.

Beliefs come from somewhere. We are not born with them. They grow with us as we do. We choose them. Unlike our race, or our sexuality or our cultural heritage.

That is why this blog isn’t ‘racist’ as was recently claimed. We do not make judgements on your worth as a person according to the beliefs you hold. Yes we believe Christianity is a bad idea but we do not say that people ascribing to those ideas are ‘bad’. We do not believe ANY belief system, or the people following them, has anymore worth or ‘truth’  than another, our own included (I have changed our blog tagline slightly to try and stress this). In fact we don’t believe in universal truth at all – at least in a metaphysical or spiritual sense. There are no ‘right’ answers in the world of spiritual belief, only opinions, as nothing can ever really be proved to be ‘right’ in an empirical sense. This is why debate is so important. It lifts the lid on the beliefs we take for granted, encouraging us to think and to grow. And to change perhaps, but only if we wish to do so.

We don’t ask you to change or to abandon your faith. Or say that you should. We merely question reasons WHY you choose to think as you do – and point out where we disagree or agree with your position.

Strong beliefs will be met with a strong challenges. Obviously. Don’t open yourself to this if you don’t want to.

I appreciate that for some people belief is an instinctual, emotional thing, separate from rational thought. Fair enough. I would question the sensibilityof dictating your life by such beliefs, especially if they lead you to make judgements about others. But again that is your choice.

But if you’re not able, or not willing, to engage with your faith on a critical, objective level then don’t do it.

So once again I say: we are here to challenge and be challenged.

Why are YOU here?

Right. Now that’s out the way – back to the debate…