“Our species is the only creative species, and it has only one creative instrument, the individual mind and spirit of a man. Nothing was ever created by two men. There are no good collaborations, whether in music, in art, in poetry, in mathematics, in philosophy. Once the miracle of creation has taken place, the group can build and extend it, but the group never invents anything. The preciousness lies in the lonely mind of a man.
“And now the forces marshaled around the concept of the group have declared a war of extermination on that preciousness, the mind of man. By disparagement, by starvation, by repressions, forced direction, and the stunning hammerblows of conditioning, the free, roving mind is being pursued, roped, blunted, drugged. It is a sad suicidal course our species seems to have taken.
“And this I believe: that the free, exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world. And this I would fight for: the freedom of the mind to take any direction it wishes, undirected. And this I must fight against: any idea, religion, or government which limits or destroys the individual. This is what I am and what I am about. I can understand why a system built on a pattern must try to destroy the free mind, for that is one thing which can by inspection destroy such a system. Surely I can understand this, and I hate it and will fight against it to preserve the one thing that separates us from the uncreative beasts. If the glory can be killed, we are lost” (East of Eden, 131).
8 comments:
So individualistic, and yet so true.
I might not agree with his implications about cooperation and collaboration, but they're still worth considering, I guess.
Fascinating!
NICE PICS............
It is interesting, but I don't think I agree. Josh and I have collaborated on five impressive creations, including our relationship.
I would argue that any good thing comes from a greater Mind that brings all creative exercises to a place of cooperation.
He's the same old misanthrope who called giving "a selfish pleasure," often "downright destructive and evil." I can appreciate where his philosophy led him while still identifying it as insidious.
The context of the giving quotation would seem to indicate that Steinbeck is particularly indicting the rapacious philanthropists who make scads of money through unscrupulous business practices and then deign to exculpate themselves through ostentatious endowments (though this theological writer used it to illustrate the importance of giving with humility). The disgrace that Alyosha inflicts upon the Snegirov family in The Brothers Karamazov through his attempt at mitigating his brother’s humiliation of the father by giving them money is a situation worth considering in a more micro-level illustration.
I don’t know if Steinbeck is necessarily assaying a description of the creation of people; rather the text would seem to indicate a direction towards non-human concepts and ideas (“in music, in art, in poetry, in mathematics, in philosophy”). I don’t think he oversteps his bounds in observing that few good collaborations in these areas come to mind. I can’t say that I can see how an assertion of the vital necessity of the freedom of the individual could be considered insidious. The inversion of such, however, could more justifiably be in this manner characterized.
I can perhaps be excused for omitting the helpful context of the quote, as I came across it secondhand in another book, shoehorned into a train without outlets. Nevertheless he seems to indict charity in general ("nearly always") as an egotistical exercise meant to keep the less fortunate in their place, with robber barons simply the outrageous throwaway example meant to prove the "rule." Yet even they were not nearly as lupine as he imagines (and here I would love to link to examples such as Rockefeller, but I am -- alas -- limited).
I just can't help but believe that a man who could interpret something so innocent and right as generosity as mere reinforcement of inequality, a salve to be cast off for the good of the wound, is fueled by a prideful desire for self-reliance that found some expression in that quotation. As it did in the Garden: thus "insidious." Certainly, as you say, the opposite is no less evil, and so I do appreciate his spirited defense of freedom.
On topic, more than anything, I am struck by his stunning doctrinal absolutism. Nothing was ever created by two people? Verifiably false in the particular, unnecessary to the argument in the general. Which is what bothers me most: his intense fixation on self-reliance is not necessary to defend individual freedom, and turns off many who would otherwise be his allies.
I would again refer to the context of the quotation regarding giving to further explicate Steinbeck’s actual intent with the statement. He continues on to advocate the merits of being able to receive humbly, something often harder than giving in such a manner. Giving is just not an absolutely innocent act. The motivations behind the spectrum of instances of giving are innumerably complex. I would be far from endorsing Steinbeck’s entire life philosophy (whatever that might entail), but I would maintain that in these two cases he has made some incisive and insightful observations. The issue of giving, however, is obviously peripheral to the excerpt in question.
Regarding Steinbeck’s absolute statements, I don’t know if they should be characterized as “doctrinal.” This is a passage from a novel, after all, not a philosophical treatise. Steinbeck may have actually believed his “only” and “[n]othing,” or he may have been employing the literary device known as hyperbole to make his point. Either way, the point that the genesis of a concept necessarily occurs in the mind of a single individual is a logical premise for the defense of individual freedom. Steinbeck readily admits that group collaboration can result in worthy developments (“the group can build and extend it”), but he maintains that innovation is an individual phenomenon. This is why we must protect the ability of the individual to think, create, rove, invent, and inspect independently.
Post a Comment