Some information is simply not safe for us--not because
there is something wrong with its
possession in the abstract, but because it is the
sort of thing we humans are not well suited to cope
with. There are various things we simply ought not
not to know. If we did not have to live our lives
amidst a fog of uncertainty about a whole range
of matters that are actually of fundamental interest
and importance to us, it would no longer be a human
mode of existence that we would live. Instead
we would become a being of another sort, perhaps
angelic, perhaps machine-like, but certainly not
human.
-Nicholas Rescher,
an essay entitled Forbidden Knowledge
There is no case where ignorance should be preferred
to knowledge -- especially if the knowledge is
terrible.
-Edward Teller
When the same warning recurs in myths across many different cultures, it seems like we'd be well advised to take it seriously. In this fascinating book the great literary critic Roger Shattuck puts a lifetime of learning to the task of answering one extraordinarily difficult question :
Can we decide if there are any forms of knowledge,
true or untrue, that for some reason we should
not know?
Stories as varied as Adam and Eve, Oedipus, Pandora's Box, Prometheus, Frankenstein, Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and Dr. Faust all suggest that we have long understood that there are indeed limits to what Man should inquire into. Meanwhile, for the most part, modern man steadfastly refuses to acknowledge even the possibility of such natural limitations. In the fields of physics, chemistry, biology, and genetics, scientists plumb to the very depths of Creation, denying any responsibility for the byproducts of their research--nuclear weapons, toxic waste, funky new diseases, genetic engineering, etc. And in the "Arts" it is avowed that any attempt to limit obscene, pornographic, and violent words and images is unacceptable censorship of free expression :
We believe that the free cultivation and circulation
of ideas, opinions, and goods through all society
(education, scholarship, scientific research, commerce,
the arts, and the media) will in the long run
promote our welfare. We also believe that we can
contain the social and political upheavals into
which these same cultural enterprises have launched
us.
In fact, as Shattuck acknowledges :
Today the principle of open knowledge and the free
circulation of all goods and ideas have
established themselves so firmly in the West that
any reservations on that score are usually seen as
politically and intellectually reactionary.
Now I'm admittedly more comfortable being called a reactionary than most people are; that is reactionary when defined as follows : "One who favors reaction, or seeks to undo political progress or revolution." As the great novelist Flannery O'Connor said : "You have to push as hard as the age that pushes against you." A reactionary today is merely pushing back against over a century's worth of revolution which has discarded most of the Judeo-Christian tradition, particularly its moral component. I, for one, don't mind saying I'm reacting to that.
But the term reactionary has such pejorative implications that it is understandable that Roger Shattuck feels uncomfortable about it. He is. or was, after all an academician and an intellectual, and in his milieu the term reactionary is probably a worse epithet than child molester.
In this brilliant book then, Shattuck offers a moderate and carefully reasoned (perhaps too moderate and careful) survey of the great works of literature which touch upon his question, then looks at several specific areas of science and violent pornography to see if the warnings our cultural tradition transmits should be heeded by us moderns.
The section of the book where he interprets various classics of Western literature is just terrific. It is consistently interesting and mind stretching. His treatment of Milton's Paradise Lost is worth the price of admission by itself.
In the section where he considers whether the warnings should lead us to restrain ourselves in our pursuit of knowledge, he does an excellent job of showing what the objections are to the unfettered pursuit, but he shies away from the conclusions that his own arguments suggest. So, for example, even after an extended discussion of how worthless the "literature" of the Marquise de Sade is and how intellectually bankrupt has been the effort to rehabilitate his reputation, even after presenting the argument that such works may tend to lead to violence towards women, he ultimately suggests no more than that we ignore de Sade.
On the one hand, the reluctance to censor extant works and to limit further research on, and applications of, certain types of science is entirely understandable. No one who loves liberty can take such proposals lightly. But it is precisely because we take knowledge so seriously that we must be willing to face up to the dangers it may pose. Nor does there seem to be any coherent reason why knowledge should enjoy an absolute protection from societal limits. The other rights and liberties that the Constitution recognizes are all subject to at least modest limitations--right to bear arms, right to assemble, right to religion, etc.--and other presumed liberties, like the right to property, are subject to nearly draconian limitations, i.e., taxation. There appears to be no empirical reason why some modest restrictions on the most violent forms of pornography and the most dangerous forms of science should be so completely unacceptable. If--in a nation founded on ideas such as that men should be free to worship God as they please and should be free from excessive taxation--we can ban prayer in schools and take 40% or whatever of a person's income, what is the rationale for saying that we have to allow people unlimited access to pornography and must leave scientists free even to practice eugenics or to create clones for the sole purpose of harvesting their organs ? Is the stigma of a word like reactionary really so powerful that the very possibility of discussing these issues has been placed beyond the Pale? I don't know what things are like where you live, but here in New Hampshire, given a choice between our gun rights, our hard earned money, and magazines filled with pictures of men having sex with donkeys, I think we'd likely give up the smut first (though, of course, I can't speak for everyone).
Roger Shattuck deserves great credit just for raising the issues in
this book, however delicately. And it is worthwhile just for the
literary criticism he provides. But one wishes he'd had the courage
of his convictions and been willing to press the moral case that goes along
with the literary evidence he presents. As he shows, it is a central
theme of the Western Canon that, as John Milton put it, Man must be "lowly
wise," must be willing to accept certain limitations on what he can know,
if for no other reason than that certain kinds of knowledge are fundamentally
beyond our ken and may unleash destructive forces which are beyond our
ability to control. Perhaps it's best to end as we began this review
and just say that when the same warning emanates from such widely varied
sources in our culture, perhaps it would be a good idea to heed it.
(Reviewed:07-May-01)
Grade: (A-)
