The artists mentioned and the works Carroll draws upon are all listed at the back of the book: Donatello, Shakespeare, Cervantes, Holbein, Luther, Calvin, Raphael, Caravaggio, Poussin, Valázquez, Rembrandt, Bach, Descartes, Mozart, Kant, Marx, Darwin, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Freud, Henry James and John Ford.

If nothing else, I’ve had a “who’s who” style education of modern history. I think this book would have made more sense if I’d already studied this period and was aware of the conventional readings. The Wreck of Western Culture strikes me as an alternative reading that works against the traditional view of the humanist / modern / structuralist era.

On the reading front, I’m still plodding through John Carroll’s The Wreck of Western Culture, not because it is badly written or anything but just because I don’t get much time to read and when I do, I prefer to read science fiction so it’s difficult to crack open a theological text (even though this is kind of a sociological / historical book). The book is quite entertaining for me on some levels because Carroll uses classical paintings, sculpture and Shakespeare to illustrate his points about how culture has evolved over the last half century or so. I’ll do a more detailed post about this book at some stage.

As for Soularize, I’ve listened to the first two lectures which are by N. T. Wright looking at the book of Acts and then one of Paul’s speeches I think in Corinth where he was required to defend his faith and how he avoided being charged with preaching a new deity by appealing to the “altar to an unknown God”. Wright’s first talk was a bit of a whirlwind but tended to focus on Stephen’s speech when he was stoned to death and the context of Christianity as it started within Judaism. The second talk focussed on parallels on how Christians might address society today by identifying the places in our society where “an unknown God” is worshipped and also what modern idols can be challenged.

In the Preface, Carroll gives an overview of the humanist era as he will portray it in the book. He posits that the conflict between Luther and Erasmus is emblematic of the humanist era. The core of the struggle was humanism’s failure to find a spiritual core. While humanism advanced intellectually, building a technologically advanced society, spiritually and culturally it died.

Carroll paints a bleak picture of society:

Is it surprising that we are run down? We are desperate, yet don’t care much any more. We are timid, yet we cannot be shocked. We are inert underneath our busyness. We are destitute in our plenty. We are homeless in our own homes. (Carroll, The Wreck of Western Culture, 1)

I guess there are times when I feel like that but really is it true of western society? It’s hard to make a comparison to any other age where perhaps humanity was well resourced, caring, confident and innocent. Perhaps we felt a sense of progress in our busyness and felt rich even though we existed humbly? Did we feel secure in our homes?

We can all see ways in which society fails us: especially as we head into a recession. Whether it be social isolation and mental health issues, apathy over human rights violations, bad workplace conditions and a lack of ownership of our work, excessive debt or suburban violence. But that is a narrow view and I can also think of all of the opposites: We are relatively rich and have good public services, government health care and a welfare system. We have excellent educational facilities and good literacy. Mostly our children are not forced to work and don’t have to fight wars and we are often happy to be together as families even if we don’t have everything we could desire.

But I think Carroll’s point is that we don’t have a spiritual framework that helps us deal with death or that gives us strength when things turn ugly. What he means is that our lives are fragile and it doesn’t take much to bring some of us down. I guess he will suggest that a spiritual framework aka religion at least provides a spiritual foundation on which we can stand and face death, relationship breakdowns and other hardships.

Carroll states that the reason for looking back on humanism is to help us get over it and move on. He sees his book as a kind of requiem for humanism so that we can remember its triumphs, acknowledge its failures but most of all resolve to be done with it.