Wendell Berry’s comments on gay marriage last month raised some eyebrows among conservatives. Were his comments a ‘Grandpa Simpson moment’ or the logical outcome of Porcher presuppositions? Below are snippets of what he said.
On Nature:
“If it can be argued that homosexual marriage is not reproductive and is therefore unnatural and should be forbidden on that account, must we not argue that childless marriages are unnatural and should be annulled?” he asked.
His understanding of nature seems no different from mainstream liberal views here. Patrick Deneen, who no one would accuse of having a simplistic view of nature, has cited Berry’s work as having influenced his own outlook. Does Berry’s comment above coincide with the notions of nature implicit in his non-fiction and Port William novels?
On Marriage’s decline:
“Heterosexual marriage does not need defending,” Berry said. “It only needs to be practiced, which is pretty hard to do just now.”
“But the difficulty is not assigned to any group of scapegoats,” he said. “It is rooted mainly in the values and priorities of our industrial capitalist system in which every one of us is complicit.”
Berry is correct that capitalism’s primacy on productivity puts pressure on families today in a way that previous generations did not have to endure. But ‘mainly’? How does the Sexual Revolution figure into Berry’s account of family breakdown?
On Social Conservatives:
“The oddest of the strategies to condemn and isolate homosexuals is to propose that homosexual marriage is opposed to and a threat to heterosexual marriage, as if the marriage market is about to be cornered and monopolized by homosexuals,” Berry said. “If this is not industrial capitalist paranoia, it at least follows the pattern of industrial capitalist competitiveness. We must destroy the competition. If somebody else wants what you’ve got, from money to marriage, you must not hesitate to use the government – small of course – to keep them from getting it.”
Berry appears to think Social Conservatives are under some sort of false consciousness. Whatever arguments Social Conservatives purport to make, says Berry, their motives are a product of the capitalist system they support. Like the previous quote, Berry attributes economics as the underlying cause.
If he sees industrial capitalism as being unnatural, then what does he envision as a more ‘natural’ community? Until his recent comments, I would have thought it was some sort of marriage between social conservatism and environmentalism. How should we interpret his work now or is this a rant not meant to be taken seriously?
February 12th, 2013 | 12:02 am
[...] A Port William Statement?First Things (blog)Berry appears to think Social Conservatives are under some sort of false consciousness. Whatever arguments Social Conservatives purport to make, says Berry, their motives are a product of the capitalist system they support. Like the previous quote … [...]
February 12th, 2013 | 1:51 am
“The oddest of the strategies to condemn and isolate homosexuals…”
Well, of course, that isn’t what proponents of conjugal marriage are doing at all. So Berry isn’t only claiming conservatives are under a false consciousness in their “industrial capitalist paranoia,” but he’s imputing conscious motives to conservatives that most wouldn’t recognize. Odd indeed.
But it doesn’t seem that Barry is so much in favor of “gay marriage” as he is opposed to the “industrial capitalist” system that he thinks makes practicing marriage so difficult. In that context, his comment reminds me of the marxist/ critical strategy of encouraging policies they might normally be opposed to in an attempt put the contradictions of capitalism into relief. Peter has often commented on the Marxian influences among the Porchers, so it wouldn’t surprise me if Barry is less interested in supporting gay marriage than he is in putting a few chinks in the “industril capitalist” system.
February 12th, 2013 | 3:32 am
Berry is entirely correct to finger industrial capitalism but you have not understood his point. It is not productivity but “creative” destruction. The capitalism encourages entrepreneurship and satisfaction of unease. And Sexual Revolution is the outcome when these habits are translated into a wider sphere.
February 12th, 2013 | 6:40 am
[...] Wendell Berry’s comments on gay marriage last month raised some eyebrows among conservatives. Were his comments a ‘Grandpa Simpson moment’ or the logical outcome of Porcher presuppositions? Below are snippets of what he said. On Nature: “If it can be argued that homosexual marriage is not reproductive and is therefore unnatural and Source: Postmodern Conservative [...]
February 12th, 2013 | 6:51 am
Thanks Jason. This amplifies some apt comments David Mills made in the January edition of First Things (in the “While We’re At It” section) about Berry and Thomas Wolfe both being writers “appropriated by conservatives” who turn out to be…politically speaking, voting and rooting for the other side. Far from affirming Pat Deneen’s annoying stance of neutrality, Mills reports there that Berry said he’s “Mostly a Democrat,” and that he voted for Obama both times.
And boy, that third comment you report is just intellectually pathetic. And I should also add, intellectually unjust, failing to do Golden Rule justice to conservatives by actually finding out what they say about a particular belief of theirs, and then at least reporting it. In all ways so dissappointing that I will grasp for the Grandpa Simpson explanation.
I will say this, though. Berry’s comments on the Sexual Revolution are tough and perceptive. If in the comments above he seems to tie the “values” of the Revolution too determisitically to capitalism, his fuller critique and linking of the economic and sexual free markets is much more powerful and subtle. His essay “Sex, Economy, Freedom, and Community,” is perhaps the best to study on this. And literature-wise, the man is one of the better defenders marriage has got–I found the novella Re-membering, the only one of his I’ve read and supposedly not even one of the best ones, genuinely moving on this score.
February 12th, 2013 | 8:36 am
The real threat of homosexual marriage is that they will view a traditional Christian church’s refusal to perform a gay marriage as a bigoted act. Lawsuits will follow. And they will require religious groups to allow equal-access to marriage. Unthinkable? So is the refusal to exempt religious organizations from providing abortion/birth control coverage under Obamacare.
February 12th, 2013 | 10:20 am
Having read and reviewed any number of Wendell’s “Port William” novels and novellas I don’t remember any homosexuals dwelling among the hills and dales of that picturesque valley.
As a Christian Wendell should understand that a practicing homosexual exists in a state of sin, period. If he/she does not seek reconciliation with God he/she is doomed for eternity, again period. For the Christian church to bless a ‘marriage’ between two practicing homosexuals would be for the church to participate in their sin.
However,I’m not surprised. Wendell’s always been an admirer of Roosevelt’s New Deal, and old liberal Democrat, and maybe a Marxist of one sort or another.
Wendell doesn’t know it, and would never agree, but his progressivist leaning are not only inhibiting his Christian faith but also limits the profundity, depth, and drama of his work, severely. But, he is still America’s best fiction writer.
February 12th, 2013 | 12:46 pm
[...] A Port William Statement? – Jason Joseph, PoMoCon / First Things [...]
February 12th, 2013 | 6:50 pm
“Berry said liberals and conservatives have invented “a politics of sexuality” that establishes marriage as a “right” to be granted or withheld by whichever side prevails. He said both viewpoints contravene principles of democracy that rights are self-evident and inalienable and not determined and granted or withheld by the government.”
This strikes me as a conveniently disengenuous take on the gay marriage debate. Gay marriage became a political topic because gay activists made it one. This was not a cause that was invited by Christians.
Mr. Berry seems to misunderstand what the debate is really about. It is not about whether there should be gay marriage but rather whether there should be any definition of marriage at all. This became evident to me when I listened to a debate on this topic and the pro-gay marriage advocate was pressed to provide a reason why gay marriage should be included in the definition but not other presently excluded classes, such as polygamists, incest, etc. The question was obviously posed in the spirit of reductio ad absurdum but was received by the advocate as an offensive insinuation that gay relationships were somehow morally equivalent to incest. While it was an effective evasion, it was an evasion nonetheless, obvious to anyone familiar with the use of reductio ad absurdum in argument.
The point that was made was that there really can be no rational basis for a definition of marriage once you concede the spirit of the arguments posed by advocates of gay marriage. If inclusion is the highest virtue then there are no grounds for posing any moral ideal as any such principle would by its nature imply exclusivity.
The reason why believers are as exercised as they are on this topic is manifold, the erosion of marriage as a definable instituion just being one, the other is how advocates of gay marriage have comported themselves in their advocacy. For instance, here in California, when prop 8 was on the ballot, we saw the spectacle of gay activists attempting to agitate and intimidate public figures who were on record supporting the proposition. I vividly recall an interview with actor Orson Bean who described attempts by activists to get a play of his shut down because of his support. Other examples include the bizarre offensive against such institutions as the Boyscouts and Chic Fil A.
Taken altogether, those of us who happen to disagree with the gay marriage position realize that, ultimately, this is not just about gay marriage, nor is it just about whether marriage should even be considered a definable institution, but whether, if its advocates succeed, will any point of view that dares differ from the liberal dispensation be legally tolerated. In light of recent incursions of legal policy into the lives of those whose personal conviction differ, HHS being one such example, it seems the answer is not very hard to discern.
Mr. Berry can judge from whatever fence he chooses to sit upon, but in doing so he is only serving his own conceit. The rest of us know what this is really about.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact