To Be Seen Learning

Posted on June 18, 2026 by Luke Ford

A man walks into the beis medrash on Shabbos morning. He wears a black Borsalino, brushed, the brim shaped the way the older baalei batim shape it. He takes a seat three rows from the mizrach wall, close enough to the rav to be counted, far enough that no one can say he chose the seat to be counted. He opens a Gemara to Thursday’s daf while the minyan is still on Pesukei D’Zimra. During the silent Shemoneh Esrei he stays on his feet after the others sit, swaying, his lips moving, his eyes shut. No one times him. Everyone knows.

David Pinsof gives this a name. In his paper “The Evolution of Social Paradoxes,” he defines a social paradox as a signal built to hide, from the man who sends it and from the man who receives it, that a signal is moving between them. The virtue signaler does not believe he is signaling virtue. The men who award him virtue do not believe they are awarding it either, and if they caught themselves doing so, the award stops. The signal works only while buried. Bring it to the surface and it dies.

Pinsof builds the paradox from two abilities. The first is recursive mindreading, the human knack for holding a thought about a thought: he wants me to believe he is pious; he knows that I know he wants me to believe it. Most men track three or four of these layers without strain. The second is cue-based inference, the habit of reading a trait off a behavior. A man who delays gratification reads as trustworthy. A man who wears a yarmulke reads as a Jew. A cue leaks information without trying to. A signal is sent on purpose. Once both programs run inside the same skull, the two slide into each other and will not hold still. The man who knows Shas because he loves it gives off a valid cue of learning. The man who drops a sharp Tosafos into conversation to be heard dropping it has turned that cue into a signal. And the loud signal, caught, slides back into a cue, this time of vanity.

The frum world keeps an exact word for the second man. Frummer. Yeshivish for the one whose religion has gone showy, whose chumras outrun his level, whose lips move a beat too long. It is an insult, and the insult is the whole point. The community polices the slide from honest piety to status display by naming it and laughing at it. Halacha names it too. Yuhara is the prohibition on religious ostentation, the sin of keeping a stringency above your station so that others will see you keep it. A man who washes for bread where the custom is to wait, who wears tzitzis out where his fathers wore them in, who takes on a chumra the gedolim of his town did not take on, commits yuhara. The category exists because the slide is old and the tradition saw it coming. Pious behavior carries rank. The rank corrupts the behavior the instant anyone admits the rank is there.

Pinsof argues that status signals go underground on their own, pushed there by the mindreading arms race. Judaism did not wait for the arms race. It built the burial into the law and the mussar. The Talmud in Pesachim teaches that a man should learn Torah even she-lo lishmah, not for its own sake, because from impure motive he comes to pure. The ideal is lishmah, learning with no eye on the reward, and the tradition treats the eye on the reward as a sickness to be outgrown. Pirkei Avot warns the scholar not to make the Torah a crown to magnify himself or a spade to dig with, and teaches that the man who uses the crown passes from the world. Tocho k’voro, inside like outside, names the integrity that the paradox threatens, the match between the private man and the public one. Every one of these is a rule against signaling that you are not signaling. The tradition saw the buried signal and ordered it buried deeper.

Maimonides (1138-1204) ranks the burial. His ladder of tzedakah, the one Pinsof’s own sources cite, puts the gift where giver and taker never learn each other’s names above the gift handed over with a smile and a witness. The higher rung is the more concealed one. Climb the ladder and you climb toward the gift that earns no credit, which is the gift that earns the most credit among the men who understand the ladder. The donor wall in the lobby sits at the bottom of the ladder and the top of the building fund. The plaque, the dinner journal ad, the mi shebeirach read out for a pledge, all of it transmits wealth and devotion at once, and all of it loses force the moment it reads as bought honor rather than given help. The man who gives in secret and is found out has the best of both. Pinsof calls this symbiotic deception. The Rambam called it the higher rung and let the secret do its work.

The top of the frum hierarchy holds because it refuses to look like a top. Anava, humility, is the master middah, and the gadol who flees honor, who has to be begged three times before he takes the rosh yeshiva’s chair, who travels in a plain car and eats a plain meal, gathers the honor he flees. Pinsof’s account explains why the flight is the move. A trait hard to fake and easy to read makes a stable signal. Humility is easy to fake and hard to read, so the men competing in it are forced underground, into ever quieter displays of not competing. The Novardok school of the mussar movement pushed this to its edge. Its students did bizyonos, drills in self-humiliation, walking into a pharmacy to ask for nails, wearing torn clothes in the street, courting shame on purpose to starve the ego’s hunger for honor. The man who broke his ego most thoroughly rose highest in a yeshiva built to have no highest. The status game collapsed and reformed one rung down, and the new rung was abasement.

Where the trait is easy to mimic, Pinsof predicts arms races and churn, and the kashrus world delivers them. Glatt was once a stringency and is now the floor. Chalav Yisrael, pas Yisrael, water filtered for the copepods the poskim argued over, hand-shmura matzah guarded from the cutting of the wheat, the second and third hechsher on a product that already had one. Each chumra starts as a private cue of seriousness, becomes a signal as the serious adopt it, and then becomes the new baseline as the slow adopters catch up, which sends the front-runners hunting for the next one. The shidduch market runs the same churn on the children. A girl’s family lands a chosson learning in a top yeshiva and the landing reports the family’s standing more than the boy’s mind. The school the children attend, the waiting list, the rejection from the more exclusive cheder, all of it moves rank, and the parents will tell you, with feeling, that they chose the school for the chinuch.

Some communities have noticed the churn and tried to legislate it down. The wedding takanos in Lakewood and elsewhere cap the guest list, the number of musicians, the flowers, the length of the smorgasbord. These are a community looking straight at a signaling arms race and trying to turn the volume down by law, because the spending had stopped buying status and started buying ruin, each family forced to match the last. Pinsof’s theory predicts both the arms race and the takanah, the runaway signal and the collective attempt to cap it. The sheitel sits in the same place. A woman covers her hair for tznius, and the covering becomes a four-thousand-dollar custom of European hair that looks better than the hair it hides. The luxury must stay quiet, the way the old money teaches the new that the loud yacht reads as vulgar and the plain one reads as secure. Modesty becomes the most expensive thing in the room while insisting it is only modesty.

The paradox guards the burial. Pinsof notes that once a man names the game as a game, the naming reads as a cue of his own low standing, his cynicism, his sour grapes. The frum world reads the one who goes off the derech and writes the exposé this way. He is not heard as a witness. He is read as a bitter loser who could not win and now wants to burn the board. The reading might be wrong in any single case and right often enough to hold, since the man with the most reason to call the whole thing a status game is the man who lost it. So the sacred value holds. Affirm it and you rise. Question it and you fall, and your fall confirms that questioning it was a low move. The buried signal stays buried, defended by the cost of digging it up.

Pinsof closes his own paper by turning the knife on the social scientist, who runs on the sacred values of truth and discovery and protests, with feeling, that he seeks only knowledge. The same hand that writes this essay seeks status by writing it. The point holds across every human group that keeps score, and all of them keep score. What sets the Orthodox case apart is the instrumentation. Most cultures bury the signal and forget they buried it. Judaism buried it, wrote down where, posted a guard, named the sin of digging, ranked the virtue of burying deeper, and built a thousand years of mussar around the suspicion that the man who looks holy wants to look holy. The tradition’s own warnings are the best evidence for Pinsof’s theory and the closest thing anyone has built to a defense against it. Lishmah is the name for the signal that is not a signal. The man who reaches it stops sending. Almost no one reaches it. Everyone is told to try.

Posted in Evolution, Orthodoxy | Comments Off on To Be Seen Learning

Judith Butler

Posted on June 18, 2026 by Luke Ford

Judith Butler (b. 1956) is an influential philosopher and social theorist whose work has reshaped how scholars and ordinary readers alike speak about gender, sexuality, identity, ethics, political power, violence, and democracy. She built her early reputation on the theory of gender performativity, set out in Gender Trouble (1990), a book that helped found queer theory as an academic field and placed her at the center of contemporary feminist philosophy. Across four decades her project moved from German idealism and French post-structuralism toward a wider study of human vulnerability, social dependency, recognition, and nonviolence.

She was born on February 24, 1956, in Cleveland, Ohio, into a Reform Jewish family where Jewish learning shaped her thinking from an early age. By her own account, synagogue elders sent her to study with a rabbi after she talked too much during services, and those sessions opened questions of ethics, theology, and interpretation that turned her toward philosophy. The experience left a lasting mark. Her maternal relatives suffered losses during the Holocaust, and that history later informed her engagement with violence, mourning, exile, and Jewish political identity.

She attended Bennington College and then transferred to Yale University, where she earned a bachelor’s degree in philosophy in 1978 and went on to complete an M.A., an M.Phil., and a Ph.D. in philosophy in 1984. A Fulbright year took her to Heidelberg University. Her doctoral dissertation, Recovery and Invention: The Projects of Desire in Hegel, Kojève, Hyppolite, and Sartre, became the basis of her first book, Subjects of Desire: Hegelian Reflections in Twentieth-Century France (1987).

That early work shows a side of Butler her admirers and critics often miss. Before her name attached to gender theory, she worked as a scholar of German idealism and twentieth-century continental philosophy. Her reading of G. W. F. Hegel (1770-1831), and above all the struggle for recognition in the master-slave dialectic, recurs throughout her career. She drew also on Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), Michel Foucault (1926-1984), Jacques Derrida (1930-2004), Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), Jacques Lacan (1901-1981), and the psychoanalyst Joan Riviere (1883-1962), whose essay “Womanliness as a Masquerade” gave her an early foundation for the claim that gender identities are enacted.

After graduate school she taught at Wesleyan University, George Washington University, and Johns Hopkins University. In 1993 she joined the faculty at the University of California, Berkeley, her home for most of her career. There she became the Maxine Elliot Professor of Rhetoric and Comparative Literature and helped develop the university’s Program in Critical Theory. She also held the Hannah Arendt Professorship at the European Graduate School.

Gender Trouble appeared in 1990 and made her reputation. The book challenged an assumption common in feminist thought, that “women” name a stable category with a shared essence. Drawing on Foucault, Derrida, psychoanalysis, and feminist theory, she argued that gender performativity forms through repeated performance, social norms, and cultural expectation. Gender identities take shape through repeated acts that lend them the look of nature.

An essay from 1988, “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution,” set out much of this before the book did. Read at first inside a small academic circle, Gender Trouble grew into a defining work of the humanities in the late twentieth century. The idea of gender performativity reshaped argument across philosophy, sociology, anthropology, literary study, law, education, and political theory.

She extended and refined the argument in Bodies That Matter (1993), a reply to critics who charged that performativity ignored biology. She did not claim that bodies are imaginary. She argued instead that societies read and organize bodily difference through cultural frameworks that change with history. That distinction sits at the center of later debate over sex, gender, and identity.

Through the 1990s she widened her inquiry into power and the formation of the subject. The Psychic Life of Power (1997) asks how people grow attached to the very norms that constrain them. Excitable Speech (1997) takes up hate speech, censorship, and linguistic injury, and argues that language carries force because it works through social structures that precede any single speaker.

In 1999 Martha Nussbaum (b. 1947) published “The Professor of Parody” in The New Republic. She charged Butler with trading practical political reform for symbolic gesture and linguistic critique, and called the prose needlessly obscure and the politics ineffective. Butler’s defenders read the attack as a misreading of post-structuralist theory. Her critics read it as a decisive verdict on academic radicalism. The exchange became a famous quarrel in contemporary feminist thought.

After the attacks of September 11, 2001, her attention turned toward ethics, violence, war, and human interdependence. In Precarious Life (2004), Giving an Account of Oneself (2005), Frames of War (2009), Notes Toward a Performative Theory of Assembly (2015), and The Force of Nonviolence (2020), she built a philosophy grounded in shared vulnerability. Human beings, she argues, depend on one another at the root. Political orders decide whose lives count as valuable and whose suffering stays out of view. The ethical task is to build institutions that admit a common human precariousness.

This turn reveals a deeper continuity beneath the change of subject. The concern with recognition that drove her studies of Hegel becomes a concern with how societies recognize, or fail to recognize, the humanity of others. Her questions about gender join a larger inquiry into social existence.

Jewish thought grew more prominent in her later writing. In Parting Ways (2012) she draws on Hannah Arendt (1906-1975), Emmanuel Levinas (1906-1995), and Walter Benjamin (1892-1940) to set out a Jewish ethics of coexistence, responsibility, and criticism of state power. She argues that Jewish histories of exile and vulnerability offer resources for thinking about justice and political responsibility beyond nationalism.

Her positions on Israel and Palestine drew heavy controversy. She has criticized Israeli government policy in sharp terms and voiced sympathy for parts of the Palestinian cause. Her supporters read these stands as consistent with her commitment to nonviolence and human rights. Her critics call her judgments one-sided or naive. The dispute reached an international audience in 2012, when the award of the Theodor W. Adorno Prize drew protest from some Jewish organizations and Israeli officials.

In recent years she has become a leading defender of gender theory against a rising political opposition. Who’s Afraid of Gender? (2024) examines anti-gender movements across Europe, Latin America, and North America. She argues that “gender” has turned into a symbolic target onto which societies cast their anxieties about social change, globalization, secularization, and cultural transformation. The book draws in part on her own experience, including the 2017 protests around her appearance in Brazil, where demonstrators burned an effigy of her.

Beyond her scholarship she has gathered many honors, among them election to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2019, the Theodor W. Adorno Prize, the Andrew W. Mellon Distinguished Achievement Award, the French Order of Arts and Letters, and the Distinguished Lifetime Achievement Award of the American Council of Learned Societies. Her books appear in dozens of languages and have shaped scholars, activists, policymakers, and public figures around the world.

In her personal life she lives in Berkeley with her longtime partner, Wendy Brown (b. 1955), and their son. Butler identifies as nonbinary and uses they/them pronouns while also accepting she/her.

Her lasting contribution lies in a sustained challenge to essentialist accounts of identity and in a philosophical study of how human beings become who they are through their relations with others. Whether she writes about gender, language, grief, war, democracy, or ethics, she returns to one question: how can human beings live together in a way that honors both their differences and their deep mutual dependence? Few living philosophers have shaped as much the vocabulary through which our societies now discuss identity, power, recognition, and freedom.

The Carrier Problem: Butler’s Performativity and Turner on the Tacit

Judith Butler builds gender out of repetition. The subject does not own a gender and then express it. The subject performs acts that cite earlier acts, and the long chain of citation produces the look of an inner nature. A performance works because an audience reads it. Reads it against what? Against a background that comes before the performer, a grid of norms Butler names the heterosexual matrix, a field of cultural intelligibility that settles in advance which acts will register and which will fall flat. The background carries the weight. Strip it away and a gesture turns to noise.

Stephen Turner spent a book on what such a background is and how it gets into people. The Social Theory of Practices (1994) takes apart the idea that a shared tacit knowledge sits under social regularity and explains it. The lineage runs through Michael Polanyi (1891-1976) on tacit knowing and Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) on the background of a form of life, and it reaches Butler through Foucault, through Bourdieu, through the post-structuralist habit of treating discourse as a substrate that constitutes its speakers. Turner’s complaint is that we can watch separate people, trained apart, turn out performances alike enough that an observer files them under one practice. We cannot watch a shared thing pass from body to body. The sameness is the observer’s posit. The passing has no account.

Set Butler’s citationality beside this and the gap opens. She borrows iterability from Derrida: an act has force because it repeats prior acts, and the repetition reaches back with no first instance and no fixed origin. The norm is never present in full, so it can drift, fail, turn against its own use. The move looks like an escape from the transmission problem, because Butler refuses to name a stable source from which the norm descends. But the citation still has to land. A citation lands only when the audience already holds the code that lets them hear it as a citation of that norm and not some other. So the question returns at the level of the reader. Where does the code sit, and how did separate readers come to hold the same one closely enough that a gesture in one city reads the same in another? Butler answers with discourse, with the social, with the matrix. Turner’s reply is that naming the substrate is not showing how it reproduces. She has given the carrier a name and treated the name as an explanation.

The matrix is the same collective tacit object that fails Turner’s test. It is supposed to be shared, durable, and prior, and it is supposed to produce regular outcomes across people who never coordinated. That is practices-as-possession in new dress. Butler took the essence she expelled from the body and lodged it in the social field, where it now does the carrying she denied the body could do. The performer holds no inner gender, granted. But the field holds a grid that constitutes the performer, and the grid has to get into millions of heads in a form stable enough to police and recognize. The body was emptied. The field was filled.

Butler’s two needs pull against each other. To explain why gender feels natural and gets enforced, she needs the background shared and tough. To explain why gender can shift and be contested, she needs the background loose and open. She secures both only by leaving the carrier unexamined, so that it can be solid when she explains constraint and porous when she explains change. Turner’s question, asked of either face, gets no answer that does not lean on the other.

The strongest Butler reads the matrix not as a thing but as a shorthand for many local regularities, crowds of similar performances with no single grid behind them. Turner welcomes that reading and then collects the bill. If there is no shared background, only resemblance among separately habituated bodies, then the heterosexual matrix explains nothing. It summarizes. And a summary cannot constitute a subject. Butler wants the matrix to be a cause, a force that makes us before we choose, the source of performativity’s teeth. The honest nominalist version of her own view turns that cause into a label for the regularities it was meant to explain.

Butler’s account of how repetition produces the natural rests on a shared background she never cashes out as a working process. Turner shows that the background, once examined, either dissolves into individual habituations that carry no collective force or hardens into the reified substrate he spent a career refusing. The performance is observable. The grid behind it is assumed. Butler needs the grid to be real and potent, and the moment she makes it real she has built the carrier she set out to do without.

The Selective Nominalist: Butler and Turner on Essentialism

Judith Butler is the famous enemy of essence. There is no womanhood behind the woman, no inner core that gender expresses, no fact of nature that the social merely dresses. Identity comes last, not first. It is an effect thrown off by repeated acts, and the sense of a stable self underneath is the sediment those acts leave. Gender Trouble and Bodies That Matter (1993) press this against feminism’s own habits, against the assumption that “women” name a kind with a shared property that politics can speak for. Butler dissolves the kind. The category is a settling of norms, not a discovery of essence.

Stephen Turner shares the suspicion of essences and carries it further than Butler will. His skepticism falls on collective concepts, on the practice of treating “society,” “culture,” “the social,” “power,” and “discourse” as real entities with stable identity and causal force. Across his work he resists the move that takes a noun for a population of loosely related events and hands it the powers of a thing. The essence he hunts is not the essence of the individual. It is the essence of the collective, the reified abstraction that social theory keeps installing as a cause because the prose cannot run without a subject for its verbs.

Lay Butler’s nouns out and watch them work. Norms produce. Power constitutes. Discourse regulates. The matrix compels. These are not idle words in her sentences. They are agents. They have enough unity and enough endurance to make subjects against the subject’s will, to set the terms a person is born into, to punish the gestures that fall outside the grid. That is essence at the level of the collective. Butler emptied the woman and filled the field. She is an anti-essentialist about the gendered individual and an essentialist about the social forces she says constitute it. The small essence goes. A larger one takes the throne.

Performativity needs the collective to be strong. If norms and power are thin, mere names for scattered habits, then nothing constitutes anyone, and gender drops back to choice and display, which Butler denies it is. Her whole case against voluntary identity depends on a social order tough enough to make us before we decide. So she must reify. The anti-essentialist program runs on an essentialist engine, and the engine has to be powerful or the program stalls. Turner’s point lands. You can run a thin nominalism that dissolves the essence of the woman and the essence of the field alike, and then you lose the constituting force and the grand claim with it. Or you keep the force by treating the collective as a real cause, and then you are doing to “power” what you forbid others to do to “woman.” There is no consistent halfway. Selective nominalism is the name for taking the discount on one and paying full price on the other.

Butler can say that power and discourse are not things but relations, fields, processes without a subject, and that she never meant them as entities, but a process without a subject that nonetheless produces, constrains, recognizes, and punishes is a cause wearing a disclaimer. The grammar gives it away. It acts, it does, it makes, and a thing that acts is functioning as a cause in the explanation whatever ontology the footnote claims. Turner reads the verbs, not the disavowals.

The reified collective is harder to see than the reified individual, because it flatters a critical self-image. To posit an inner womanhood looks naive and conservative. To posit power and discourse as the makers of the subject looks sophisticated and radical. Both posits do the same forbidden work, the installing of an abstraction as a cause, and the radical version is the one that escapes scrutiny precisely because it sounds like critique. Butler caught feminism resting its politics on an essence. Turner catches Butler resting her critique on a bigger one.

The consistent path returns the analysis to people and their separate habituations, to the many small regularities that a word like “power” gathers and hides. Butler refuses that path because on that path the constituting force she needs dissolves. The claim that an order makes us softens into a description of how people pick up local habits under local pressures, which is true and modest and useless for the architecture she wants to build. Her anti-essentialism is sound about the body and false about the field. She told the truth about the woman and then smuggled the essence back in one size larger, where the prose could lean on it and the politics could too.

The Free Lunch: Butler’s Ethics and Turner on the Normative

The later Judith Butler writes about grief. After September 11, 2001, her work turns from gender toward war, mourning, and the question of whose death registers as a loss. Precarious Life (2004) and Frames of War (2009) argue that every life is exposed and dependent, that none of us stands clear of harm or carries on without others, and that political orders sort lives in advance into the grievable and the rest. From this she draws an ought. We should build institutions that own the shared exposure. We should extend recognition past the borders that decide which corpses count. The Force of Nonviolence (2020) presses the duty all the way to a refusal of violence rooted in the equal precariousness of all.

Stephen Turner’s Explaining the Normative (2010) takes apart the step that runs from “lives are sorted” to “lives ought not be sorted.” Turner is a naturalist about explanation. He wants causes and facts a person can be held to, and he watches what happens when a theorist reaches for a normative fact, a bindingness that is supposed to be there in the world and to obligate apart from anyone’s say-so. His finding is a fork. Either the normative claim reduces to ordinary facts about what people do and feel and enforce, in which case it adds no force of its own and the word “ought” is decoration. Or it stands apart as a fact of a special kind, a sui generis bindingness, in which case it explains nothing and answers to no test. The normativist lives off the slide between the two, borrowing the solidity of the first to fund the authority of the second. Turner calls the slide what it is, a move from “treated as binding” to “binding,” made without paying for the second clause.

Run Butler’s ethics through the fork. Precariousness is offered as the ground of obligation. Strip it down and ask what it is. It is a fact about creatures like us. We can be wounded. We die. We come into being through others and cannot keep ourselves alive alone. All true, and all descriptive. A fact about exposure does not, on its own, hand anyone a duty. From “we can be hurt” no “we must not hurt” follows without a further premise that says exposure obligates, and that premise is the whole of what was to be shown. So Butler faces the fork. If precariousness is only the fact, it grounds no ought, and the ethics floats free of it. If precariousness obligates, then she has loaded a human feature with built-in normativity, an essence that comes with duties stitched in, which is the structure of natural law and the structure she spent thirty years refusing when others built it into the body.

Precariousness functions in her ethics as a quasi-essence. It is the universal human condition, the one thing true of all of us across every difference she elsewhere insists on, and from that universal she derives what we owe. The anti-essentialist arrives, by the long road, at a shared human nature that grounds a morality. The vulnerable body, emptied of essence in the early work, comes back at the end carrying obligations, and the obligations ride in dressed as a report on the human condition. Turner names the passenger. The ought entered disguised as a description.

The Butlerian answer is that obligation arises within relation, she holds, not from an essence but from the way we are made through one another, so that recognition is something we owe because we are constituted in the owing. The reply repeats the slide one level up. “We are constituted in relation” is a causal and descriptive claim, an account of how subjects come to be. “Therefore we owe one another” is the leap, and no causal premise yields an obligation without a hidden normative premise doing the lifting. Relational or not, the bindingness is asserted, not earned. Turner has a name for the hidden premise that lets the conclusion arrive without a bill. He calls it the free lunch, and Butler eats it at the relational table.

Turner declines to posit entities that do explanatory work while escaping the tests that real causes face, whether the entity is a shared background, a reified collective, or a normative fact. Butler’s ethics asks for the third. It needs precariousness to be both a plain fact about bodies, so that it sounds humane and grounded, and a source of duty that binds across the planet, so that the politics has reach. Those are two different things, and the argument lives on the trade between them. Turner’s account of the normative holds her to one or the other. As description, precariousness binds no one. As a duty woven into the human condition, it is the essence she denied to gender, returned at last as the ground of the good.

The Great Delusion

In his 2018 book, The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities, John J. Mearsheimer wrote:

My view is that we are profoundly social beings from the start to the finish of our lives and that individualism is of secondary importance… Liberalism downplays the social nature of human beings to the point of almost ignoring it, instead treating people largely as atomistic actors… Political liberalism… is an ideology that is individualistic at its core and assigns great importance to the concept of inalienable rights. This concern for rights is the basis of its universalism—everyone on the planet has the same inherent set of rights—and this is what motivates liberal states to pursue ambitious foreign policies. The public and scholarly discourse about liberalism since World War II has placed enormous emphasis on what are commonly called human rights. This is true all around the world, not just in the West. “Human rights,” Samuel Moyn notes, “have come to define the most elevated aspirations of both social movements and political entities—state and interstate. They evoke hope and provoke action.”
[Humans] do not operate as lone wolves but are born into social groups or societies that shape their identities well before they can assert their individualism. Moreover, individuals usually develop strong attachments to their group and are sometimes willing to make great sacrifices for their fellow members. Humans are often said to be tribal at their core. The main reason for our social nature is that the best way for a person to survive is to be embedded in a society and to cooperate with fellow members rather than act alone… Despite its elevated ranking, reason is the least important of the three ways we determine our preferences. It certainly is less important than socialization. The main reason socialization matters so much is that humans have a long childhood in which they are protected and nurtured by their families and the surrounding society, and meanwhile exposed to intense socialization. At the same time, they are only beginning to develop their critical faculties, so they are not equipped to think for themselves. By the time an individual reaches the point where his reasoning skills are well developed, his family and society have already imposed an enormous value infusion on him. Moreover, that individual is born with innate sentiments that also strongly influence how he thinks about the world around him. All of this means that people have limited choice in formulating a moral code, because so much of their thinking about right and wrong comes from inborn attitudes and socialization.

Mearsheimer and Butler attack the same enemy. Both deny the liberal portrait of man as an atom who reasons his way to his preferences and carries inherent rights into the world. Mearsheimer says we are social from start to finish, formed by the group before we can assert ourselves. Butler says the subject comes constituted by norms it never chose and depends on others for its standing. On the made, dependent self they shake hands. If Mearsheimer is right about the social nature of man, Butler’s case against the sovereign individual stands beside his.
The split runs through what socialization makes. Mearsheimer’s socialized creature is tribal. He bonds to his group, sacrifices for its members, draws his identity from a particular people, faith, or nation, and keeps his moral circle small because survival ran through the band and not through humanity. Butler’s ethics reaches the other way. Precarious Life and Frames of War argue that every life is exposed, that all of us are grievable, that recognition is owed past the border to the stranger and the enemy. The reach is universal, and universalism is the target of The Great Delusion. Mearsheimer holds that a moral circle taking in all of humanity is a liberal dream, because real men come infused with loyalty to their own. If he is right, Butler’s universal precariousness is that dream in new clothes. She struck inalienable rights from the liberal creed and set universal vulnerability in their place, and his objection transfers without a seam. A property shared by all humans does not bind tribal humans to all humans. The creature socialization built is loyal to his group, not to the species.
Butler is an anti-liberal about the self and a liberal about the moral circle, and Mearsheimer’s anthropology says the pair cannot hold. She took the social self from the side that denies atomism and the universal duty from the side that affirms it. The same socialization that makes her subject makes him a partisan, not a citizen of the world. Her ethics asks the constituted man to spread his concern across all the grievable. His constitution disposes him to spend it on his own.
Then reason. Mearsheimer ranks reason last, under socialization and under inborn sentiment. The value infusion lands in the long childhood, before the critical faculties wake, so the moral code is set before a man can weigh it. Butler’s hope of release runs on the opposite bet. Show that gender is performed and not given, expose the contingency of the norm, and the grip loosens, resignification opens, the matrix can move. That is a wager on critique, and critique is reason. If reason is the weakest of the three sources, the wager loses. The reader who closes Gender Trouble still carries the code his childhood poured in, and the argument never reaches the place where the code was laid. Butler overrates the seminar. Mearsheimer’s man does not get argued out of what raised him.
The backlash reads differently under each. Who’s Afraid of Gender? takes the anti-gender movement as panic, a projection to be analyzed and talked down. Mearsheimer’s anthropology reads it as tribal man guarding a category his group is built on, the order of family and sex and faith. On that reading the backlash is no sickness waiting for the right therapy. It is the expected motion of a social creature when someone moves to dissolve a marker his belonging runs through, and it does not yield to better theory, because theory never held it. Butler’s remedy, critique aimed at loosening a category, runs straight into the attachment Mearsheimer says reason cannot shift.
Mearsheimer grants innate sentiment, leanings we are born with that color how we judge. Butler builds the subject from contingent discourse with no nature beneath. If something is born in, her construction does not reach all the way down, and some of what she credits to the work of norms is the work of an inheritance her vocabulary has no name for.

‘A Big Misunderstanding’

David Pinsof has a name for the story intellectuals tell about the world. He calls it the misunderstanding myth. Everything wrong with us comes from a failure to understand, and the cure is understanding, which happens to be the trade of the people telling the story. War, bigotry, polarization, all of it cognitive error waiting for the right correction. The story flatters the teller. It seats the thinker in the savior’s chair. Pinsof’s counter is that humans are savvy animals who grasp what they have an incentive to grasp, that stupidity is mostly strategic, and that our troubles trace to bad motives, not bad beliefs. We compete for status, coalition, resources, and control of the state, and we dress the competition in the language of care because cynicism looks ugly and sweetness sells.

Butler gives the myth its high form. She does not say misunderstanding. She says misrecognition. War and oppression flow from frames that cast some lives as grievable and others as not, from norms that read the gendered body wrong. The cure is to expose the frame, denaturalize the norm, widen recognition until it takes in the precarious stranger. Who runs the exposure? The critic. The theorist. Butler. The misrecognition myth seats the recognizer at the center of moral repair, and the recognizer is the one who wrote the books. A fine thing for a theorist to believe.

Pinsof’s tool is the split between stated and actual motives, the gap between the mission statement and the profit. Judge Butler by the stated goal, a more livable world, nonviolence, justice for the vulnerable, and the ledger reads like failure. Four decades of theory, and gender stands more contested than when she started, the wars run on, the prize ceremonies draw protests. By that measure there has been a great misunderstanding, which is why she now spends a book on the panic and the projection. Read the same career by the goal Pinsof says moves the animal, and it reads as success built by a rational creature. A named chair at Berkeley, the Adorno Prize, translation into dozens of tongues, leadership of a coalition that spans queer theory, the campus left, and Palestinian solidarity. The mission statement promises universal flourishing. The return is consecration.

The sting is that Butler owns tools close to Pinsof’s and never turns them on herself. Performativity teaches that acts produce their effects whatever inner story the actor tells, that the deed outruns the stated intent, that the look of a noble essence is something repetition manufactures. Aim that at the critical theorist and you get Pinsof’s point in Butler’s own grammar. The display of care is an act that produces moral standing for the one performing it, whatever the standing’s stated cause. She unmasks the heterosexual matrix, the state, the norm. She leaves the status returns of the seminar alone. The unmasking runs one way, outward, toward rivals, and never back toward the coalition that consecrates her.

Her register seals it. Butler does not write in the cold voice of the cynic. She writes in grief. Precarious life, grievable life, the force of nonviolence, mourning as the ground of ethics. Pinsof’s reply is that the mournful voice is the top grade of the sweetness signal. Cynicism is icky, he says, so we pour out idealistic feeling to show we are not mean, and it works. The more tender and wounded the prose, the more sainthood it buys in the room that reads it. The grammar of care does not oppose status seeking. In Butler’s milieu it serves as the instrument of it.

Pinsof says the intellectual teaches the crowd who its enemies are, and the enemies turn out to be his own closest rivals. Butler names hers without strain, the anti-gender movement, the security state, the Zionist, and inside the guild, the liberal universalist. Her quarrel with Martha Nussbaum reads in this frame as a status contest between two high-ranking feminists over the coin of the field, theory against clarity, radical critique against practical reform, each claiming the moral height, neither one confused about the other. Who’s Afraid of Gender? takes the backlash as panic to be talked down. Pinsof takes the backlash as a rival coalition guarding the categories its life runs on, and takes Butler’s contempt for it as the cosmopolitan elite’s contempt for the provincial rival one rung below. Naming the panic is not diagnosis. It is coalition maintenance.

Take her claim that nations sort lives into the grievable and the rest, and that the sort drives violence. Butler treats the sort as a frame to be corrected. Pinsof treats it as a coalition boundary doing its assigned work. States do not kill because they misframe whose death counts. They kill for interest, and the grievability frame arrives after the deed as the moral cover, the denial and embellishment Pinsof calls weapons in the fight. The gap between the lives we say we grieve and the lives we grieve is no error in need of theory. It is the border between us and them, drawn where the competition wants it.

Her universalism, all lives equally grievable, lands in the frame as a status-enhancing opinion. It signals the widest moral circle, which sits at the top of the heap in the cosmopolitan academy, while its working effect is to mark the holder’s standing over everyone whose circle stays small, the nationalist, the believer, the parochial. She states a wish for the stranger. She banks distinction from her own.

Posted in Philosophy | Comments Off on Judith Butler

‘A Big Misunderstanding’

Posted on June 18, 2026 by Luke Ford

David Pinsof writes:

I spend a lot of time with intellectuals—writers, thinkers, social scientists, etc. If I had to sum up their worldview in one sentence, I could hardly do better than this one: “Everything that’s wrong in the world is caused by misunderstanding.”

Political polarization? Misunderstanding. If only people could get over their primitive “tribalism” and “confirmation bias,” they could have reasonable discourse and work together to solve humanity’s problems.

Misinformation? Misunderstanding. If only people knew how to “vaccinate” themselves against the “virus” of fake news, they’d stop being such gullible idiots and vote for the Democrats.

Bigotry? Misunderstanding. If only people realized that members of other ethnic groups were normal, decent human beings like them, there would be no bigotry.

Stereotypes? Misunderstanding. If only people knew that stereotypes were false and pernicious, there would be no stereotypes—and no bigotry.

War? Misunderstanding. If only people knew that war is pointless and evil, a product of bigotry and misinformation, there would be world peace.

Capitalism? False consciousness. If only people knew how much greedy corporations were exploiting them, the workers of the world would unite.

David Pinsof writes against the Enlightenment intellectual, the man who holds that ignorance is the root of evil and education the cure. The Bible got there first, and it came down on Pinsof’s side.
Cain knows. He speaks with God before he kills his brother, and God warns him that sin crouches at the door and he can master it. He does it anyway. Pharaoh hardens his heart through ten demonstrations, and the plagues add information without moving him. The men at Babel are not confused. They are ambitious. After the flood God says the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth, and the sentence locates the trouble in the will, not the understanding. So the biblical picture and Pinsof’s picture shake hands. Both throw out the rationalist story. The problem is bad motive, not bad belief.
The Talmud sharpens this. The rabbis build their law around the man who knows and sins anyway. They separate the inadvertent sinner from the deliberate one and treat them as different creatures, because the deliberate sinner is the normal case and the inadvertent one the exception worth marking. They never imagine that a man transgresses because no one told him. He was told. The whole apparatus of warning, witnesses, and rebuke assumes a knowing agent who wants the forbidden thing.
The yetzer hara carries the rest of the agreement. The rabbis do not treat the selfish drive as a defect. They treat it as the engine of the world. The midrash has them capture the evil inclination and the world goes dark, no eggs laid, no houses built, no marriages made, until they let it back out. Were it not for the yetzer, a man would not build a home or take a wife or father a child. The drive that ruins is the drive that creates. This is Pinsof’s line that the biases are savvy and not broken, arriving two thousand years early and stated with more nerve. You cannot cut the thing out. You can only harness it.
The divergence comes over what follows from all this. Pinsof collapses the high motive into the low one and stops there. Altruism is status display, the mission statement is cover for the profit motive, and the man who claims to love mankind is climbing a hierarchy and calling it virtue. The tradition holds both at once and refuses the collapse. It has a word for the deed done with impure motive and a word for the deed done for its own sake, and it makes the surprising claim that a man should act even from the low motive, because from the act done for the wrong reason he comes to the act done for the right one. The practice trains the heart. The mission statement, said and said again and lived, reshapes the man who says it. Pinsof reads the gap between word and deed as permanent fraud. The rabbis read it as the space where a man is made. That is closer to Aristotle than to either Pinsof or the rationalists he fights.
So the law is not an effort to inform a confused creature. It channels a knowing one. You do not fix the heart by telling it the facts. You bind it, fence it, and give it habits, and over a life the binding does work that argument cannot. The greater the man, the rabbis say, the greater his yetzer, which is the opposite of the comforting belief that wisdom dissolves appetite.
Pinsof ends in the hole. You can study the dirt to the last molecule and remain stuck. The world does not want saving. The tradition agrees the creature is what he is and will not be argued into goodness, and then it draws a different conclusion. It ends in the yoke. The difference is between despair and obligation. Job sits in the hole and his friends explain the hole to him at length, and God answers from the whirlwind without explaining the hole at all, and re-obligates him. Both Pinsof and the tradition reject the ladder out through education. One man sits down in the pit. The other takes on a commandment.
The sharpest place the essay lands is the charge it never aims at the rabbis. Pinsof’s case against intellectuals is self-flattery and denial. They cast themselves as healers, suppress the findings that make them look bad, and never write down their own status crimes. Now turn to how the Talmud is built. It preserves the losing opinion next to the winning one and lets both stand as the words of the living God. In the story of the oven of Akhnai, the academy overrules a voice from heaven, tells God the Torah is no longer in heaven and goes by majority, and excommunicates the great dissenter. A reader trained by Pinsof sees a guild protecting its monopoly against a charismatic rival, and the reading holds. But the guild writes down what its action cost. It records the dissenter’s tears, the damage that his grief brought, the death tied to how the majority treated him. The text indicts its own honor economy in its own pages.
That is the contrast that favors the tradition on Pinsof’s own terms. His intellectuals deny and embellish because denial and embellishment are weapons. The Talmud’s form is anti-denial. It keeps the record of the rivalry, the loss, and the punishment, and hands that record to its own students to study against itself. The modern intellectual class, the target of his essay, does not do this. The savvy coalitional animal Pinsof describes built, in the rabbinic academy, a literature designed to catch itself in the act.

Posted in Judaism | Comments Off on ‘A Big Misunderstanding’

Legends of the Fall (1994)

Posted on June 18, 2026 by Luke Ford

Tristan kneels in the mud of a forward trench in France and opens his brother with a knife. Samuel is dead, his face still soft with the surprise of it, and Tristan cuts the heart out of the chest and packs it to send back to Montana, to bury in the ground his father chose. The men around him watch and say nothing because there is nothing to say. To them the act is butchery. To Tristan it is the last thing a brother can do.

Hold on that gap. Two men watch the same knife and one sees desecration and the other sees a rite. The knife does not change. The cosmos behind the knife changes.

Ernest Becker (1924-1974) gave this gap a name. A man knows he will die and cannot bear the knowing, so he builds, or inherits, a scheme that lets him feel he counts inside something that outlasts his body. Becker called it the hero system. The Denial of Death lays it out. Culture hands each man a way to earn the sense that he is a creature of cosmic worth and not an animal that dies and rots. The work, the name, the cause, the bloodline, the God, the legend. Becker’s word for the project is causa sui, the wish to be one’s own father, one’s own origin, beyond the reach of death. The arrangement is a lie, Becker says, but a vital lie, the only thing standing between a man and the terror of his own death.

Legends of the Fall, the 1994 film Edward Zwick (b. 1952) made from the novella by Jim Harrison (1937-2016), sets four such schemes under one Montana roof and lets them grind. The picture looks like a romance about a beautiful man and the woman three brothers love. Underneath it is a study of what honor means, and the study turns on something most viewers feel without naming. Every Ludlow uses the word honor, and no two of them mean the same thing by it.

Colonel William Ludlow (Anthony Hopkins, b. 1937) built the ranch as a verdict on his country. He served the Army, watched it lie to the Indians and break them, and quit. He took One Stab and his rifle and his sons to a far corner of the territory and made a private kingdom there. His hero system is sovereignty. A man counts, in the Colonel’s world, by keeping faith with the land he holds and the few men he chose, and by owing nothing to the government that betrays. Honor for him is the wall around his own ground. When his sons march off to fight England’s war he reads it as a swindle, the nation reaching past his wall to take his boys for a cause he already judged false. He is not a coward and not a pacifist. He fought. He decided the only sovereign worth dying for is the one a man builds himself. The stroke that silences him for years is the picture’s cruelest turn of meaning. The sovereign loses his voice, and the kingdom rots while he watches.

Samuel (Henry Thomas, b. 1971) comes home from Harvard with a fiancée and a head full of the century’s bright faith. His hero system is the cause. A man counts by serving the moral order that runs above any one ranch or family, the order of nations and rights and civilization. So he puts on the uniform of the Canadian force to help Britain against Germany, and he believes the belief all the way down. His honor is service to principle. The trench teaches him nothing because the gas and the wire kill him before the lesson lands. He volunteers for the night patrol, walks into the flare, and dies for an idea that never knew his name. Inside his own system the death has weight. Inside his father’s it is theft. Inside Tristan’s it is a failure of protection, a promise broken.

Alfred (Aidan Quinn, b. 1959) wants what the others scorn. He wants Helena, the suit, the seat in Congress, the ledger that balances. His hero system is the institution. A man counts by his standing in the records the society keeps, by office and reputation and the law’s good opinion. Honor for Alfred is a name that clears, a man other men trust with money and votes. He courts Susannah by the rules, proposes in form, waits his turn. He does business with the O’Banion bootleggers because power moves through such men and he means to have power. His brother reads this as whoring. Alfred reads his brother as a savage who solves every problem with his hands. Both are right inside their own books. The film grants Alfred one turn the audience does not expect. When the killers come for Tristan, Alfred stands at his father’s house and shoots the sheriff dead, and for a moment the institutional man steps outside the institution to keep faith with blood. His honor flexes. It holds two cosmoses at once for the length of one gunfight, and then he goes back to Helena.

Tristan (Brad Pitt, b. 1963) belongs to none of these. At twelve he crawls to a sleeping grizzly and lays his hand on it and the bear wakes and tears him and he comes away with a claw and a wound he keeps. That is the founding scene of his system, and his system has no building in it, no office, no cause, no wall. His immortality is the wild and the cycle that has no end, the animal that does not lie to itself about death. Honor for Tristan is fidelity to the voice he hears, the bear in him, and to the blood. He swears to Susannah he will bring Samuel home and he fails, so he raids the German line alone and comes back with scalps around his neck, and the men recoil. He cuts out the heart. He screams at the sky over the grave. None of it reads as madness to him. It is the only grammar his system owns.

Here is the trap the system sets. The other Ludlows convert their heroism into symbols and survive in the modern world. The Colonel has his deed and his land. Samuel had his cause. Alfred has his title. A symbol travels into a city and a marriage and a courtroom. Tristan’s heroism refuses the symbol. It lives in the body and the act, and the body and the act find no home in Prohibition Montana, where the law writes tickets and the gangsters keep books. So he runs rum and gets his wife killed by a corrupt deputy and beats the man near to death with his hands, because the hands are all his system gives him. A man who counts only through the body must finally pay with the body. The film knows this and saves it for the end.

Susannah (Julia Ormond, b. 1965) carries the system the picture treats with the least mercy. Her immortality is union, the burning attachment to the one man who burns. When Tristan chooses her she is whole. When he leaves and writes that she should marry another, the project that held her up is gone, and she has nothing else built to stand on. She marries Alfred and keeps the form and dies inside it and then by her own hand. Her honor is constancy. The cost of a hero system that depends on another man’s presence falls on her alone, and the film, busy with its men and its bear, mostly lets it fall.

One Stab keeps the last system. He tells the whole story to a reporter, an old Cree man speaking the Ludlows into permanence. His heroism is memory and witness. He cannot stop the deaths and he does not try. He holds them in the telling so they do not vanish, and the film is his act, the immortality he can give the men he loved.

The collision comes from the words. Honor, loyalty, the land, the family, the country. The Ludlows say these to each other across the table and each hears his own cosmos in them and none hears the others. Alfred says honor and means a clean name. Tristan says honor and means a vow kept at any cost to the body. The Colonel says it and means sovereignty. Samuel said it and meant the cause. They are not arguing about a word. They are arguing about which death a man should be willing to die, which is the only argument hero systems ever have.

Step out of Montana and the same syllable keeps splitting. Tell a Marine gunnery sergeant that honor is the thing and he hears the unit, the men on his left and right, the order followed so the others live; the worst death is the one that breaks the line. Tell a Trappist monk and he hears submission, the self emptied before God, a life counted by its disappearance into prayer. Tell a hospice nurse and she hears presence, the hand held at the bedside, a death made gentle and unalone. Tell a Neapolitan grandmother who has buried sons in the wrong kind of business and she hears the family standing above the state, debts paid, the name defended whatever the law says. Tell a venture founder in a glass office and he hears the bet made in the open, the nerve to be wrong and stand up and bet again, the disgrace of the man who never risked. Tell a Pashtun elder and he hears the guest protected under his roof though the whole valley comes for him, and the feud carried to its end. Tell a heart surgeon and she hears the outcome on the table, the patient off the machine and breathing, a record other surgeons respect. Seven men and women, one word, seven cosmoses. Each will die for the thing and none for the same thing. Put any two in a room and each takes the other for a fool or a monster.

The film ends on the word it has been building toward. Tristan grows old in the North Country, finds a carcass, meets the grizzly that was always coming, draws his knife, and loses. One Stab gives the verdict over the closing frames. “It was a good death.” Inside Tristan’s system the line is true and complete. The body goes back into the cycle by the teeth of the animal that founded him, and the legend seals. Carry the same death into another system and the verdict breaks apart. To Alfred it is a squalid finish in the woods, a man who could have had Helena dying over an elk carcass. To Samuel it serves no cause and so means nothing. To the hospice nurse a good death is morphine and family and no struggle at all, the opposite of a knife fight with a bear. To the gunnery sergeant a good death buys time for someone else, and Tristan’s buys nothing for anyone.

The film hands us One Stab’s verdict and asks us to hold it, and for two hours most of the audience does, which is the last turn in Becker’s account. The picture is an immortality project, built in 1994 and sold to a country that wanted, for the length of a film, to believe a man might still die a death that counts. We pay to live inside Tristan’s system because our own systems, the office and the ledger and the clean name, give us no such death and we feel the lack. That is the romance under the romance. Not a beautiful man and a woman. A beautiful death, and the hunger of people who suspect their own deaths will count for nothing.

Speaking the Dead

An old Cree man sits across from a newspaper reporter and begins to talk. He has outlived almost everyone in the story he tells. The Colonel is gone, and Samuel, and Susannah, and the woman Tristan married, and at the end Tristan himself. One Stab remains, and he talks, and the talking is the film. Every scene we watch is a thing he is saying. He is the only person in Legends of the Fall who knows the whole arc, the only one who speaks to us, the only one left to do it.

Hold there. The other characters spend the picture building something to carry their names past their bodies. One Stab spends it carrying everyone else’s.

Ernest Becker named the wish. A man cannot bear that he will die, so he attaches himself to a scheme that lets him feel he counts in something larger and longer than his flesh. Becker called it the hero system, and The Denial of Death sorts the kinds. Most men reach for a project of their own, a deed, a name, a fortune, a son. Becker marked a quieter route. A man earns his cosmic worth by becoming the keeper of other men’s worth, the one who guarantees that the dead are not erased. The priest takes that route. The poet takes it. The griot takes it. One Stab takes it. His immortality is not a monument with his name on it. His immortality is the refusal to let the others vanish, and the route carries a strange cost the film makes us watch. To keep the dead, a man has to outlive the people he loves.

One Stab’s hero system runs on memory and witness. He does not build a ranch or chase an office or march to a war for a flag. He stays. He came west with the Colonel out of the broken faith of the Army, helped raise the boys, held the old Cree ways inside a Cornish settler’s house, and watched. Watching is his work and his worship. The film grants him the one power none of the Ludlows hold. He decides what their lives meant. When Tristan dies in the teeth of the bear, One Stab tells us the death was good, and his word is the verdict the picture leaves us with. The men do the deeds. The narrator owns the meaning. That is a heroism of its own, older than the deed, the heroism of the man who says what the deed was for.

Look at the status detail the film keeps quiet about. One Stab is a Cree man in the service of a White family in a country that broke his people. The Colonel quit the Army over that breaking. So the house holds two defeated things at once, the old Cree world and the Colonel’s faith in a nation, and One Stab carries both. His loyalty crosses the line of conquest and does not break on it. He keeps the Ludlow dead and the Cree dead in the same memory and serves them with the same care. A lesser man in his place might have chosen a side. One Stab chose the people in front of him and made his cosmos large enough to hold them.

He kills, and the killing belongs to the system. When the corrupt men murder Tristan’s wife, One Stab rides with the answer, and he takes the scalps, and to the law this is savagery and to the newspaper a crime. Inside One Stab’s world it is restoration, the order set right and then recorded. He is warrior and scribe in one body. He does the thing and he keeps the account of the thing, and the account is what survives. A man who only kills leaves blood. A man who keeps the telling leaves a story, and the story is the longer life.

Gordon Tootoosis (1941-2011), the Cree actor who plays him, brings a stillness to the part that makes the argument without a word. He watches the Ludlows spend themselves on their hero systems and he does not flinch and he does not join them. He is the calm at the center because his system has already solved the problem the others are dying of. He knows where the meaning will be kept. It will be kept in him, then in the reporter’s pages, then in us.

Here is the price the film will not say out loud. One Stab’s hero system works only if everyone else’s fails. The witness needs the dead. The keeper needs people to keep. For One Stab to become the man who remembers the Ludlows, the Ludlows have to die, and he has to stand at the edge of each grave and stay standing. His immortality is built out of their mortality. The other men chase a future. One Stab inherits the past, again and again, each time another of them goes into the ground. The film gives him the calm of the man whose project cannot fail, and it gives him the loneliness of the man whose project requires him to bury everyone he loves before it is done. He wins. He is the last one talking. That is the win and that is the wound, and they are the same thing.

Set the word he lives by next to other men and watch it come apart. One Stab says remember and means to keep the dead present, to hold them in speech so they go on. The word does not hold still once it leaves his mouth.

A West African griot says remember and means praise. He sings the chief’s lineage at the feast, the names in their order back through the generations, and the singing is the line’s defense against death. To be forgotten is to die a second time, and the griot’s gift is that he will not let the great be forgotten.

A man documenting a massacre for a war-crimes tribunal says remember and means evidence. He writes the names of the dead so they can stand in a courtroom against the men who made them dead. Memory for him is a case. The dead are not present in his ledger. They are exhibits, and forgetting is not grief but acquittal.

A woman who runs a Confederate memorial society says remember and means inheritance and grievance. The dead are a debt the living owe, a cause handed down, and to remember is to keep faith with a beaten world and refuse the verdict history wrote on it. Her remembering and the griot’s both honor the dead, and they cannot sit at the same table.

A Mormon doing temple genealogy says remember and means rescue. He hunts the names of the forgotten dead through old registers so they can be sealed and saved, the soul retrieved by the descendant who finds it. Remembering for him is salvation work. To find a lost name is to pull a man out of oblivion and into the family of the living God.

A daughter caring for a mother with Alzheimer’s says remember and means the war at the door. Every morning she fights an erasure that is winning, and her remembering is no monument and no case and no rescue. It is the small daily holding of a person who is leaving while still in the room.

A Greek widow in her village wears black the rest of her life and says remember and means fidelity. Her body keeps the mourning her heart cannot put down. To stop would be a betrayal, so she does not stop, and the black dress is the memory worn where the village can see it.

A prosecutor says remember and means testimony. He puts a witness on the stand and rebuilds a dead man’s last hour for twelve strangers, and the remembering is sworn, timed, and contested, a thing the defense will try to break.

Seven keepers, one word, seven worlds. Each holds the dead, and no two hold them the same way. Put the griot and the prosecutor and the widow and the Confederate matron at one table and each stares past the others across a distance no one can cross, every one of them certain he alone knows what it means to remember.

Walk back to the room where the old man talks to the reporter. The Colonel built a kingdom and it rotted. Samuel served a cause and it killed him. Alfred bought an office and it left him hollow. Tristan obeyed the voice and it cost him his wife and at the last his life. Every hero system in the picture fails its man. One Stab’s does not. The proof is the picture. We sit inside his telling, watching the dead he refused to let go, and the proof of his immortality project is that it reached us, a hundred years and a continent away, in a dark room with the lights down. The witness is the man whose bid for permanence pays out. He earns it by being the last to leave. He stands at every grave, he keeps every name, and when there is no one left to bury he sits down across from a stranger and gives the dead the one thing that outlasts a body, a man willing to say their names out loud.

Posted in Hollywood | Comments Off on Legends of the Fall (1994)

The Edited Life: Salvatore Di Vita and the Sacred Image

Posted on June 18, 2026 by Luke Ford

Father Adelfio sits alone in the empty theater before the town arrives. He holds a small brass bell. He watches the film first, every reel, and at each kiss he rings the bell, and up in the booth Alfredo marks the frame and cuts it. The kisses fall to the floor in coils. The town never sees them. Later, when the lovers on the screen lean toward each other, the picture jumps, the music lurches, and the men in the seats stamp and whistle and curse the projectionist who only follows the priest.

Two men fight over the same strip of film. For Father Adelfio the kiss threatens the immortal soul, an occasion of sin smuggled into the dark, a small fire that might consume a town. For the men in the seats the kiss is the whole reason to come, the promise that life contains the thing they want and cannot name. Same frames of celluloid. Opposite gods. Cinema Paradiso opens on the exact problem Ernest Becker (1925-1974) spent a career describing, and it states the problem in the most literal form a film can manage: a man with scissors deciding which images deserve to live.

Becker’s claim, stripped down, holds that men build hero systems to deny death. A hero system tells a man what counts as significance, what counts as waste, and how he might earn a place that outlasts his body. The system supplies the sacred. It also supplies the scissors. Every hero system keeps some frames and cuts others and calls the cut holy. Giuseppe Tornatore (b. 1956) built a film around a man who grows up inside the booth, learns the trade of cutting, and then performs the cut on his own life.

The boy Totò wants only one thing. He wants to be where the light comes from. He steals strips of discarded film and hides them under his bed until they catch fire. He climbs to the booth and pesters Alfredo until the old man lets him stay. The cinema gives the child his first taste of the sacred, and the sacred has a clear location, a small hot room above the crowd where a man feeds a beam of light through a machine and conjures faces larger than any face in Giancaldo. The screen does not age. The screen does not die. Greta Garbo on the wall stays young while the widows in the front rows go gray. A boy who loves the booth has already chosen, without knowing it, the durable image over the perishable flesh.

That choice hardens into a code, and Alfredo delivers the code as a commandment. After the fire that blinds him, after the years in the booth, after the girl, the old man tells Salvatore to leave Giancaldo and never come back. Do not write. Do not think of us. Do not give in to nostalgia. Whatever you do, love it the way you loved the booth when you were small. The commandment names the sacred value at the center of Salvatore’s hero system and names the price in the same breath. The value is the work. The price is everyone in town.

So Salvatore goes to Rome and becomes a maker of images, and the man who saved the blind projectionist from the fire never returns for thirty years. He does not marry. Women pass through his bed and through the morning light of his apartment and none of them stays, because staying belongs to a different hero system, one he renounced on a railway platform when he was a boy with a suitcase. His mother says it on the telephone near the end. The house never changes. He never comes back. Whoever he brings he never keeps. She thinks he runs from something, or toward something he will not find. She has watched her son edit his own life the way Alfredo edited the films, and she has watched him keep the dream and cut the home.

Here the word love begins to come apart, which is the point Becker insists on and the point this film dramatizes better than any argument. Salvatore loves Elena. He waits beneath her window for a hundred nights in the rain. When she finally comes down to him the love is total and it is also, from that night forward, mostly an image. They lose each other. He preserves her uncorrupted by marriage, by a mortgage, by the slow erosion of two people sharing a bathroom for forty years. The love stays perfect because it stays unlived, a kiss the priest never had to cut because life cut it first. For Salvatore love means the thing held at the exact distance where it cannot decay. He films that distance for a living.

Set his love beside other men and women who use the same word and worship other gods.

A Carmelite, cloistered behind a grille she will not pass again, also speaks of love, and means a Bridegroom she will not see in this life, and counts the renunciation of every human face as the proof of her fidelity. Her love and Salvatore’s share a grammar. Both keep the beloved at a sacred distance. But she cuts the human frame to keep the divine one, and he cuts the human frame to keep the projected one, and she calls his screen an idol while he calls her grille a waste, and each is right inside the system that issued the scissors.

A widow in Giancaldo, the kind of woman who sits in the front rows under a black scarf, means something else again. For her love is presence. Love is the plate set down in front of a son, the wash on the line, the body in the next room breathing through the night. She measures a man by whether he stays. A son who leaves and does not write has not pursued a dream. He has failed at the only love she recognizes, which keeps no distance at all, which lives in the kitchen and dies in the bed and asks for nothing larger than a face she can touch. To her Salvatore’s thirty years read as a long desertion dressed up as art.

A man who builds companies, the founder who sleeps on the office couch and keeps his options open, hears love and thinks of the thing he is making. He guards it from the same enemy Salvatore fears, the ordinary, the settled, the small life that swallows a man before he has done the work. He tells himself he will marry later, after the next round, after the exit, and the later never comes, and he does not mourn it, because his hero system scored the loss as a cost of greatness rather than a grief. He and Salvatore might recognize each other across a hotel bar at three in the morning, two men who paid the same toll at the same booth.

A career officer means the unit. Love is the men beside him, the oath, the colors he salutes when the band plays. He gives his life a shape the village widow understands and the Carmelite understands, a willingness to die for a thing larger than the body, except his larger thing wears a uniform and carries a flag, and the kiss he cut was the family dinners he missed across twenty postings, and he files those under duty rather than loss.

The eldest son in a house that honors the ancestors means return. For him love is the duty to come home, to tend the graves, to carry the name forward and lay it down where it began. Alfredo’s commandment is, to such a son, close to blasphemy. Do not come back. Forget us. The son hears that and feels the floor drop, because a man who does not return has cut the one frame that gave his life its meaning, the line of fathers behind him and sons ahead, the only immortality his system offers.

A hospice nurse means none of these. For her love is the hand held at the last hour, attention paid to a stranger who will be dead by Tuesday, a sacredness that asks for no permanence, that expects to lose the beloved by design. She has built a hero system out of the very thing every other system flees. She would watch Salvatore weep over a dead man’s reel and understand it faster than the village or the founder, because she knows that love and loss arrive in the same envelope.

One word. A dozen altars. Becker’s argument, which the film makes you feel rather than concede, holds that the words we treat as universal are passwords into separate rooms, and a man who carries his password into the wrong room finds the door will not open. Salvatore carries the projectionist’s love into a Roman life and the door of ordinary happiness will not open for him, and he stops knocking, and he tells himself the screen is enough.

Then the temple falls. The Paradiso has been shut for years when Salvatore comes back for the funeral. Television emptied the seats. The square has a bank now and a parking lot and young men on scooters who never sat in the dark while Alfredo threaded the beam. The town votes to demolish the building, and Salvatore stands in the crowd and watches the charges bring the front wall down in a slow gray cloud, and an old woman beside him crosses herself as though a church had fallen, because for her it had. A hero system can outlive its vehicle. The man keeps the faith after the relic is rubble. This is the modern wound Becker did not have to name because he died before the screens multiplied past counting: the sacred object obsolesced while the believer still believes, the projectionist’s craft survived by a thousand glowing rectangles in a thousand pockets, none of them holy, none of them dark, none of them shared.

Alfredo leaves the boy a last reel. In a private screening room in Rome, alone, Salvatore threads it and sits back, and the kisses come. Every kiss the priest condemned, every embrace Alfredo cut on the bell’s command, spliced end to end across the decades, the whole censored history of desire in one town returned to the one man who would understand the gift. Garbo and the rest, lip to lip, the frames that fell to the cutting room floor when Totò was small. Salvatore weeps the way men weep when a bill comes due that they signed for long ago and forgot.

The gift reverses the original cut. Alfredo spent a career obeying the priest, removing the kisses, teaching the boy that love is the thing you cut to keep the work. At the end he hands back everything he took, as if to confess that the cut was the lie, that the kisses were the life, that the commandment on the railway platform sent a good man into thirty years of perfect images and no warm body in the morning. The boy named Salvatore Di Vita, savior of life, saved images of life instead, and the old man who built him knew it, and apologized in the only language they ever shared, which ran at twenty-four frames a second.

The frame holds the whole picture if you stand back from it. Father Adelfio cut the kisses to save souls. Alfredo cut them to keep his job and later cut a boy’s homecoming to launch a career. Salvatore cut his town, his mother, his Elena, to make films that do not die. Each man performed the central act of every hero system, which keeps some frames and burns the rest and calls the choice sacred, and each lived inside a private theater where his cut looked like devotion. The tears at the end are not regret, or not only regret. They are recognition. A man sees, for the length of one reel, all the frames he agreed to lose, and understands at last that the agreement was the price of being who he became, and that the price was real, and that he might pay it again, because the only man who never edits his life is the man who never chooses one.

Sacred values do not float free above the men who hold them. They sit in the booth, in the convent, in the kitchen, in the barracks, in the founder’s sleepless office, and they hand each believer a different pair of scissors and a different reason to use them. Salvatore loved the light. The light asked for everything, and he gave it, and the gift came back to him in a dark room as a stack of kisses he never got to keep.

Posted in Italy | Comments Off on The Edited Life: Salvatore Di Vita and the Sacred Image

The Man at the Door

Posted on June 18, 2026 by Luke Ford

On Christmas Eve of 2006, Greg Whiteley (b. 1969) climbed the steps of a cabin in Park City, Utah, a camera in his hand, and knocked. He did not know whether the family inside would wave him in or send him home. Mitt Romney (b. 1947) had not agreed to a film. The eldest son had agreed, and the son had warned him that the father never would. Whiteley knocked anyway. That night the family gathered to decide whether the father should run for President, and Whiteley wanted the lens in the room for the start of the story.

Hold the posture still for a moment. A man stands at a stranger’s door, uninvited, hoping to be let in, carrying a tool that records. Whiteley had stood at thousands of doors before that one. From 1989 to 1991 he served a mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints among the Navajo in New Mexico. He knocked. He asked people to consider a story about Jesus Christ. Most said no. He learned to survive the no and knock again. He has said the work taught him to sit inside discomfort and outlast it, and that the skill walked straight into film. The missionary and the documentarian do one thing. Each stands at the door, asks for entry, and waits for the man inside to show himself.

Ernest Becker (1924-1974) gives us the lens to read what the man at the door is doing. In The Denial of Death (1973) Becker argues that man is the animal who knows he will die, that the knowledge is unbearable, and that culture exists to make it bearable. Every society hands its members a hero system: a scheme of value that lets a person feel he counts in a drama larger than his own short life. Self-esteem, in Becker’s account, is not vanity. It is the sense of standing as an object of primary value in a world of meaning, the conviction that one’s life will register somewhere after the body fails. The hero system tells you what heroism looks like. It tells you how to earn a place that death cannot cancel.

Read Whiteley’s filmography as a catalog of hero systems raised in unpromising ground. Resolved (2007) follows high school debaters who treat a speed-talking competition as a calling. New York Doll (2005) tracks Arthur Kane (1949-2004), a glam-rock bassist who once wore a tutu and sniffed glue, now a soft-spoken clerk at a Latter-day Saint family history center, waiting on a reunion that might restore him. Last Chance U (2016-2020) plants its camera in junior college football, the bottom rung, where players the major programs threw back chase a way up and out. Cheer (2020-2022) finds Navarro College in Corsicana, Texas, a two-year school whose cheer squad wins national titles nobody in the wider world counts. Wrestlers (2023) sits with a Louisville promotion that stages fake fights for small crowds. America’s Sweethearts (2024) opens the locker room of the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, women who audition each year for a job that pays little and asks everything.

The pattern holds across twenty years. Whiteley films people pouring devotion into arenas the world files under trivial, and he honors the devotion. Critics have noticed the recurring note: the hard team rebuilds the family, with the family’s troubles attached. That reading is correct and incomplete. The deeper thread is theological. Whiteley keeps returning to one word, and the word is redemption.

Inside his hero system the word has a precise shape. Latter-day Saint theology runs on progression. The soul exists before birth, takes a body, falls, and climbs toward exaltation through covenant and effort. The Atonement does not cancel the climb. It makes the climb possible after the fall. No man is written off, because every man stands as a candidate for a glory not yet reached. The convert is the highest drama in this scheme, the punk rocker who becomes the gentle clerk, the fallen one restored. So Whiteley names a docuseries about discarded football players Last Chance U and means the title as more than a hook. The last chance is the second estate. The discarded man gets a path back. Grace arrives through a depth chart, a tumbling mat, a folding chair thrown in a fake ring, and Whiteley’s camera waits at the door for it to walk in.

Say the word in another room and it changes shape entirely. This is the part worth slowing down for, because the same value sits at the center of many hero systems and means a different thing in each, and Whiteley’s gentle reading would land as heresy, sentiment, or category error depending on whose door you knock.

Stand in a Reformed study in Grand Rapids, where a pastor in a gray cardigan keeps Calvin’s Institutes at his right hand. Ask him about redemption and the second chance and watch the jaw tighten. For him redemption is God’s unilateral act, fixed before the foundation of the world, falling on the elect for reasons no man earns. The striving toward exaltation that warms Whiteley’s films looks to this man like the old error, the heresy of works, the proud notion that a man climbs toward God by his own effort. The last chance is a sentimental American lie. Grace chose you or it did not.

Walk into a glass conference room off Sand Hill Road. A venture partner in a quarter-zip studies a pitch deck. To him redemption is the comeback, the pivot, the founder who burned through eleven million dollars and now runs a public company. Failure is not a fall. It is a line on the résumé, proof a man has been tested. The last chance is a fundraising round. He would watch Last Chance U and root for the breakout transfer, and he would not understand why Whiteley lingers so long on the boys who do not break out, the ones who go back to the gas station. To the partner those boys did not earn the next round. The story is over.

Find a sannyasi on the ghats at Varanasi, ash on the forehead, begging bowl at his side. Speak to him of a man’s last chance and he smiles at the smallness of the frame. The soul has had ten thousand lives and will have ten thousand more. There is no last anything. Release does not restore a man to the striving Whiteley films with such tenderness. Release is escape from the wheel of striving altogether. The Navarro cheerleader chasing a national title is bound tighter to the wheel with every backflip. The chaplain of the ghats would film nothing. He would walk the camera into the river.

Sit at a poker table at the Bellagio across from a professional in mirrored sunglasses, eight hours into a session. For him redemption is the next hand. Variance giveth. The fall is a downswing, the rise is regression to the mean, and the only sin is tilt, the loss of nerve that turns a bad night into a ruined bankroll. He respects the last-chance kid the way he respects a short stack: play it correctly and the cards might come. He has no theology of the climb. He has expected value, and patience, and the discipline never to need the hand he is holding.

Walk a muddy field in the Danish countryside where men in mail reenact the old heathen war code and pour mead to the Allfather. Ask about redemption and they answer with the death, not the comeback. A man is measured by how he falls, sword in hand, name intact, fit for the hall. The wrestler who loses in the fake ring and goes home is not redeemed by losing well, because the fight was never real and the death was theater. To the heathen the whole enterprise of Whiteley’s underdogs is soft, a striving toward applause rather than toward a good end. There is no second chance in his scheme. There is the one death and what the poets say after.

And stand a moment with the prosecutor who built a career on the proposition that some men forfeit the last chance by their own hand, that the door closes and stays closed, that mercy without limit is cruelty to the next victim. To him Whiteley’s refusal to write anyone off is not grace. It is negligence dressed as compassion.

Many systems, not one rival. The word survives the translation in spelling alone. Whiteley’s redemption, earned through devoted effort and offered to every fallen man, would strike the Calvinist as pride, the founder as bad capital allocation, the sannyasi as a child’s mistake about time, the poker pro as sentiment about a single hand, the heathen as softness, the prosecutor as moral cowardice. He carries one word to every door and the door decides what the word means.

His method follows from his system the way a sermon follows from a creed. Whiteley refuses the villain. He has said the show breaks if you cut every offensive thing a coach or a father says, and that the work improves when you give the man context, when you treat him as a complicated person rather than an antagonist in a script. He has said that the honest documentarian states his own subjectivity and then lets the audience decide. Read these as missionary doctrine. The man who slams the door is not the enemy. He is the next convert, not yet ready. So the camera does not condemn. It holds the door open and waits, because the soul on the other side might still come through.

Becker would press here, in the dark turn he takes in Escape from Evil (1975). The hero system buys its meaning at a price. To feel myself good in a scheme of value, I need a carrier for the evil that scheme defines, a scapegoat onto whom I load the death I cannot face. The drama needs an antagonist. And here the maker’s system and the viewer’s collide. Whiteley builds a machine that refuses scapegoats, and the audience supplies them anyway. Viewers turned the Mississippi coach Buddy Stephens into a villain he never quite was on the cut. Comment sections sorted the Navarro cheerleaders and the Dallas management into saints and tyrants. Whiteley hands you a chair of grace and you arrange the cast into the saved and the damned, because your own hero system needs the sorting more than his needs the verdict. He withholds the judgment. You bring your own.

Which returns the man to his own door. Around the release of New York Doll, Whiteley made a joke about loneliness inside a congregation, ranking the almost-famous musician below only one figure: the filmmaker who never was. The line is self-deprecating and it is also the key. Becker holds that no man escapes the hero system, least of all the man who studies other men’s. Whiteley spends his life knocking on doors with a camera because the camera is his own path up the depth chart, his own last chance against the oblivion that takes the filmmaker who never made it. He films redemption because he is inside the same drama he records. The man at the door is asking to be let in.

He keeps knocking. The discomfort he learned to outlast on the reservation is the discomfort of standing where you have no business standing, hoping the people inside will hand you their story before the light goes. Once you have it, you have proof you were there, that you mattered to the record, that the body at the door leaves a trace. That is the whole faith, stated in equipment. A man stands outside a cabin on Christmas Eve, uncertain of his welcome, and knocks, and waits to be made a witness.

Posted in Hollywood | Comments Off on The Man at the Door

Two Runners, Two Deaths: The Hero Systems of Eric Liddell and Harold Abrahams

Posted on June 18, 2026 by Luke Ford

A man walks into Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, in the autumn of 1919, and the first thing he reads is a list of the dead. The names of the men who did not come back from France are fresh on the chapel wall, and the porters wear their grief like the gowns wear their dust. Harold Abrahams (1899-1978) carries two suitcases and a name his father changed once already. Isaac Abrahams came out of Lithuania, made money in the City, and sent his sons to be made into Englishmen. The dons at the high table watch the boy with the dark hair and the quick eyes, and their welcome has a temperature, and the temperature is cool. Abrahams reads the room before he unpacks. He has been reading rooms his whole life.

Eight hundred miles north, a different man runs along a beach with the cold coming off the Firth of Forth. Eric Liddell (1902-1945) was born in Tianjin to missionary parents, schooled in England, and trained at the University of Edinburgh, and he runs with his head thrown back and his mouth open as if he were drowning in air. His sister Jennie wants him in China. The mission needs him. The running is a delay, a vanity, a road that leads away from the work. He tells her he will go. First he has something to settle with his legs. God made him fast, he says, and when he runs he feels His pleasure.

Two men, one race, the hundred meters. The stopwatch gives the same reading to both. Ernest Becker (1924-1974), in The Denial of Death, would say the stopwatch lies. The clock measures seconds. It cannot measure what a man thinks he is buying with those seconds, and the two runners are buying opposite goods in the same shop.

Becker’s argument runs like this. A man knows he will die, and the knowledge is unbearable, so every culture hands him a script that lets him feel he will not altogether die. The script tells him what counts as heroism, what earns a place in the order of things that outlasts the body. Becker calls the script a hero system, and he calls the prize symbolic immortality, and he says the whole apparatus is a lie a man cannot live without. The systems compete. They never agree on the prize, on the price, or on the meaning of the words they share. Two men can chase the same trophy and want two different gods.

Watch Abrahams chase. He tells his friend Aubrey Montague that he runs as a weapon, that he has the burden of proof on his back every time the gun goes off. The famous line gives the game away. He has ten lonely seconds, he says, to justify his existence. Hold that word. Justify. He means it as the courts mean it, as the ledger means it. He stands accused of being a Jew at Cambridge in a country that smiles and does not quite let him in, and the verdict is provisional, and the only evidence the court will accept is a finish line crossed first. He runs to acquit himself. The acquittal lasts until the next gun.

Watch Liddell run. He does not run to acquit himself, because in his account the verdict came in before the race, before his birth, before the world. He belongs to a tradition that holds a man right with God by grace and not by works, and so the running cannot earn him anything, and that is the secret of his ease. He runs the way a man sings in a language he was raised in. The speed is a gift returned to the giver. When he loses, and he does lose, he is not diminished, because he was never running to be justified in the first place. He was running because the gift wanted using and the giver was watching and the watching felt like joy.

So the word justify splits clean down the middle. For Abrahams it points to works, to the ledger, to a self on trial. For Liddell it points to grace, to a self already received, to a debt already paid. Here the picture turns over. The Jew lives by a righteousness of works. The Calvinist lives by grace. Abrahams, schooled in a country built on the Protestant idea that a man proves his election by his striving, out-Protestants the Protestants. He carries the iron logic of works-righteousness without the gospel that was supposed to relieve it. Liddell, the son of evangelists, lets the gospel relieve him. The man you expect to rest in grace grinds himself against the clock. The man you expect to grind rests. The two hero systems trade costumes, and most viewers never notice, because the costumes are the only thing they came to see.

There is a third system in the film, and it wears the best clothes. Hugh Hudson (1936-2023) and his writer Colin Welland (1934-2015) stage a scene in which the Master of Trinity and the Master of Caius summon Abrahams and inform him, with the gentlest possible knives, that he has hired a professional coach, and that this is not done. Sam Mussabini (1867-1927), half Italian and half Arab by descent, a tradesman of the stopwatch and the starting block, teaches Abrahams to drive his arms and shorten his stride and treat the body as a problem to be solved. The masters find the whole thing vulgar. Their hero system prizes the gifted amateur, the man whose excellence appears to cost him nothing, the gentleman who wins between lunch and tea and never sweats where anyone can see. To want a thing as badly as Abrahams wants it, to train for it, to pay a man to engineer it, this offends them more than losing ever could. Effort is the obscenity. Lord Andrew Lindsay, the film’s invention drawn loosely from the real hurdler David Burghley (1905-1981), runs his practice hurdles with full champagne glasses balanced on each, and spills not a drop, and laughs. For Lindsay the running is play. For the masters it is breeding. For Abrahams it is a trial. For Liddell it is worship. One track. Four cosmologies. The shared word this time is sport, and it means a different sacred thing to each man who says it.

The hinge of the picture comes on a Sunday. The schedule puts the heat of the hundred meters on the Lord’s day, and Liddell will not run. The British Olympic committee leans on him. A prince of the realm leans on him, the man who will briefly be Edward VIII, and the room fills with the soft pressure of country and crown and duty, and Liddell does not move. His sacred order ranks God above king, and the ranking is not negotiable, and a medal is a small thing to set against the Sabbath. Lindsay, the aristocrat for whom none of it cuts so deep, gives up his own place in the four hundred meters so Liddell can run a day that is not Sunday. Liddell takes the longer race, the wrong race, the race he is not built for, and wins it, and sets a world mark at 47.6 seconds, and the win reads to him not as proof of anything but as one more place where the gift met the day and the giver was pleased. He had already taken bronze at two hundred meters. The four hundred was the gift surprising even the man who carried it.

Abrahams wins his hundred meters. The gun, the ten seconds, the tape. And then the strangest beat in the film, the one that gives the whole thing away. The victory does not land. He sits alone, and the thing he spent his life proving turns out not to stay proved, and the court he ran to satisfy has already gone home. Mussabini, who built the win, weeps by himself in a hotel room and cannot bring himself to come down. Becker has a name for this flatness. The immortality project, when a man finally completes it, exposes the size of the hole it was meant to fill. The medal is real gold and the death it was supposed to answer is still coming. A man cannot buy his way out of mortality with a footrace, and some part of Abrahams, crossing the line first, learns this in his body before his mind admits it. The acquittal expires the moment it is handed down.

The two systems part ways on a single test, and the test is failure. Abrahams’s system cannot survive a loss and barely survives a win, because it stakes the whole self on the result every time. Liddell’s system survives both, because it staked the self before the race began and asked the race for nothing it could withhold. That is why the missionary looks free and the champion looks haunted, though both stand on the same podium in the same summer.

The film ends its story of Liddell with a card and a death. He went to China as his father had. The Japanese came. He sent his pregnant wife and his daughters to safety in Canada and stayed with the mission, and the Japanese interned him at Weihsien with two thousand others, and he taught the camp children mathematics and ran races for them and led them in prayer, and they called him Uncle Eric. By accounts that circulated after the war, though his most careful biographer doubts them, Churchill arranged his release in a prisoner exchange and Liddell gave his place to a pregnant woman and stayed. He died in the camp on February 21, 1945, of a brain tumor, malnutrition and overwork pressing on him, five months before the gates opened. He gave a fellow runner his worn shoes. The hero system consumes here, not on the track. A man who runs for the glory of God and not for himself ends by spending himself on others and counting the cost as gain, because his ledger was never the one Abrahams kept. Liddell dies the death his system was always pointed at, and inside that system the death is not defeat. It is the gift returned in full.

Now widen the lens, because Becker insists the two systems in the film are two among a crowd, and the crowd never stops arguing about the words. Take the value Abrahams stakes everything on, the justified self, the excellence of the body proving the worth of the man, and carry it across the world’s hero systems, and watch it refuse to hold still.

A Trappist in a Cistercian abbey rises at three to chant the psalms, and his vow is silence and stability and a grave inside the cloister wall he will never leave. Ask him to justify his existence and he will not understand the verb. He has emptied the self that would need justifying. The excellence he seeks is the disappearance of striving, the day when the will stops wanting to win anything at all. To him Abrahams looks like a man drowning who keeps explaining how well he swims.

A quantitative trader on a London desk justifies his existence in basis points before the market closes, and the verdict comes in every afternoon, numeric and merciless, and resets to zero overnight. His hero system shares Abrahams’s clock and Abrahams’s loneliness and Abrahams’s terror that yesterday’s proof buys nothing today. He understands the runner in his bones. He would have hired Mussabini too.

A laamb wrestler in Dakar carries the hopes of a neighborhood and a marabout’s charms sewn into his shorts, and his victory is not his alone but his quarter’s, his lineage’s, the spirits’ who fought beside him in the sand. The body’s excellence belongs to the ancestors who lent it. Abrahams’s loneliness on the line would strike him as a kind of orphanhood, a man fighting with no one behind him.

A Korean student preparing through the long night for the suneung, the exam that will sort his whole life in a single December day, knows Abrahams’s ten lonely seconds stretched across eighteen years. His parents wait outside the gate and pray to several gods at once. The justified self here is filial before it is personal. He runs to vindicate not himself but his mother’s sacrifices, and the burden is heavier than a medal and softer, because the love that loads it also shares it.

A Pashtun man in the mountains lives by Pashtunwali, where a man’s worth hangs on honor, hospitality, and the obligation of revenge, and where to be justified is to have answered every insult and sheltered every guest. Speed earns him nothing. A footrace settles no account that his world keeps. He would watch the Olympic final and ask what was avenged.

A bullfighter in Seville seeks justification in the way he stands inside the horns and does not flinch, in beauty bought with the nearness of death, and the crowd grants or withholds it in real time with handkerchiefs and silence. He stakes the self against the bull the way Abrahams stakes it against the clock, but the bull can kill him, and so his proof tastes of something the runner’s never will.

Same word, justification. Eight systems, eight meanings, and not one of them translates without loss into the others. The Trappist’s emptying and the trader’s basis points and the wrestler’s lineage and the student’s filial debt and the Pashtun’s honor and the bullfighter’s grace under the horns and Liddell’s pleasure of God and Abrahams’s lonely acquittal all use the human equipment for one purpose, to make a mortal man feel he amounts to something the grave cannot cancel, and each calls that purpose by the same handful of borrowed words, and each means a thing the others would not recognize.

Becker’s hard claim is that all of them are lies, necessary lies, the fictions a death-knowing animal tells himself to get out of bed. The film does not go that far, and a viewer need not either. What the film shows, and what the frame lets us name, is the gentler and stranger thing. Two men ran the same race in the same Paris summer toward two different immortalities. One built his on a verdict he had to win again every morning, and the winning hollowed him, and he lived a long anxious life and died in his bed in 1978 having proved the point and found the point would not stay proved. The other built his on a verdict already entered in his favor, and the certainty freed him to lose, to give, and to die in a prison camp at forty-three with his shoes already handed to the next runner. The clocks recorded their times to a tenth of a second. The clocks had no column for what the running was for.

Posted in Cambridge, England | Comments Off on Two Runners, Two Deaths: The Hero Systems of Eric Liddell and Harold Abrahams

The Man From Snow River

Posted on June 18, 2026 by Luke Ford

A colt worth a thousand pounds breaks out of a paddock and runs with the brumbies. That is the whole of the plot. The rest of A.B. “Banjo” Paterson’s (1864–1941) “The Man from Snowy River,” printed in The Bulletin on April 26, 1890, is men on horses going to fetch the colt back, and one rides down a mountain.

Watch the men gather. Status governs everything. The cracks come from near and far, the best riders in the district, and Clancy of the Overflow comes down to lend a hand. Old Harrison stands among them, a man who made his pile when Pardon won the cup, and money buys him the right to set the terms. Then a boy rides up on a small and weedy beast, and Harrison looks at the horse the way a man looks at a tradesman who has come to the front door. The horse, Paterson lets us know, carries a touch of Timor pony and three parts thoroughbred at least, hard and tough and bred in the high country, the kind the mountain horsemen prize. But Harrison sees only that it is undersized, and he tells the boy to stop away, the hills are far too rough for such as you.

Clancy speaks for him. He has roamed wide and seen many horsemen, and nowhere has he seen riders like the men from the Snowy River side, where the hills are twice as steep and a horse strikes firelight from the flint at every stride, and the man who holds his own is good enough. On that word the boy rides.

They run the mob to the mountain’s brow. The wild horses break for the scrub, and the old man calls the orders, wheel them, turn them, before they reach the broken country and are lost. The mob gains the summit. There the experienced men pull up. The descent in front of them might make the boldest hold his breath, a near-vertical fall of loose stone and hidden wombat holes and hop scrub. Clancy takes a pull. The boy does not. He lets the pony have his head and goes over the edge alone, sends the flint stones flying, keeps his seat where any other rider expects to die, follows the mob down and across and up the far side, runs them till their flanks are white with foam, and turns them, single-handed, and brings them home.

He does not get the colt. The poem never mentions a reward of money or a place at Harrison’s table. What he gets is the last stanza. The man from Snowy River is a household word to-day, and the stockmen tell the story of his ride.

Wikipedia says:

The poem was written at a time in the 1880s and 1890s when Australia was developing a distinct identity as a nation. Though Australia was still a set of self-governing colonies under the final authority of Britain, and had not yet trod the path of nationhood, there was a distinct feeling that Australians needed to be united and become as one. Australians from all walks of life, be they from the country or the city (see “Clancy of the Overflow”), looked to the bush for their mythology and heroic characters. They saw in the Man from Snowy River a hero whose bravery, adaptability and risk-taking could epitomise a new nation in the south. This new nation emerged as the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901.

Ernest Becker (1924–1974) would have known what to do with that ending. In The Denial of Death and Escape from Evil he argued that man is the animal who knows he will die and cannot live with the knowing, and so every culture builds a hero system, a scheme of meaning that lets a man earn the conviction that he counts in the order of things, that his life has a value death cannot cancel. The hero system tells him what counts as a brave life and what counts as a wasted one. It hands him the path by which a creature who rots can buy a share of permanence. The child, the fortune, the building with the name on it, the nation, the poem, all of these are tokens a man trades his fear of death for a feeling of lasting worth.

Read the poem through Becker and the wager comes clear. The boy stakes a real death against a symbolic one. He points the pony at a slope where a fall kills him, and in exchange he purchases the only immortality his world hands out, the name in the mouths of men. Two deaths, one transaction. He risks the body to win the household word. And the device that pays him is the poem you are reading, recited around fires, printed in a Sydney weekly, then set in front of every Australian schoolchild for a hundred years. Paterson built the boy a house of words and the boy still lives in it.

So far the boy looks like a hero plain and simple. He is not. He is a hero inside one system, and the value he stakes everything on is sacred only there.

Take the word the bush makes holy. Game. To be game means to answer a hard call with the body, to go over the edge when the prudent men pull up. The boy is game. That is his whole virtue and his whole reward. Now carry the word out of the high country and watch it change in other men’s mouths.

A Ngarigo man of the Monaro, whose people held that country before Harrison’s people ran cattle on it, hears the story and finds no hero in it. The mountain the boy conquers is not an arena to him. It is kin and law and the bodies of the old people, a country a man belongs to and answers for, not a country a man rides down to prove a point. Courage in his system means keeping obligation across the generations, holding the knowledge, standing for the place against the men who fence it. The boy’s ride reads to him as a settler’s habit of treating land as a thing to master and a name to win. His immortality does not come as a household word. It comes as a place in a web of ancestors and descendants that has no use for a single rider’s fame. The poem cannot see him at all. That blindness is the point.

A grazier of the Western District hears the same ride and counts the cost. Game, to him, means holding the run through the seventh year of drought, carrying the overdraft, putting the homestead and the bloodline and three generations of family against the bank and the weather. He admires nerve, but nerve in the service of continuity. A boy who risks a thousand-pound colt and his own neck to recover one beast has not shown courage. He has shown a poor sense of what a man owes the property and the name on the gate. The grazier’s permanence sits in the land held and passed down, the merino flock improved across decades, the family that outlasts the man. Heroism that burns the asset to win a story strikes him as a young fool’s trade.

A shearer on the picket line in 1891, the year the Queensland sheds went out and the troopers rode in, hears the poem and smells a lie. To him game means standing in the line when the mounted men come, refusing to scab, going to gaol for the union, holding with the many against the squatter and the bank. His hero is the collective and his immortality is the movement, the eight-hour day, the thing that outlasts every man who built it. The lone rider winning personal glory off the back of a wild chase is the squatter’s daydream, a romance sold to working men to keep them dreaming of singular escape instead of acting together. Henry Lawson (1867–1922) fought Paterson in The Bulletin over precisely this, the bush as a place of grim labor against the bush as a place of song, and the shearer is on Lawson’s side.

A Carmelite, cloistered, hears the word and the system inverts it. The brave thing in her house is to become no one, to die daily to the self, to live hidden and be forgotten by the world and known only to God. Sanctity is anonymity. The household word is the temptation, not the prize. The boy’s hunger for a name that men repeat is, in her ledger, the sin near the root of the others. Her permanence is the soul before Him, and it is bought by going the opposite direction from the spur, down into obscurity rather than down into glory.

A founder in a Surry Hills office in our own decade hears the ride and recognizes it at once, because his system runs on the same engine wearing a suit. Game means the bet, the term sheet, the willingness to point the company at the slope when the cautious money pulls up. He admires the boy. He would fund the boy. His permanence is the exit and the foundation and the name on the building, and he knows that the men who win it are the ones who go over the edge while the prudent hold their breath at the summit. He reads the poem as a parable of risk and is not wrong, which tells you how durable the engine is. Only the costume changes.

Five men, one word, five systems, and the same ride that makes the boy a hero reads as a settler’s arrogance, a fool’s waste, a scab’s vanity, a sinner’s pride, and a sound venture, depending on which house of meaning a man was raised in. Becker’s claim sits here. Heroism is never bare. It is always heroism according to a code, and the codes do not agree, and a man cannot feel his life counts except inside one of them.

The bush hero system that crowned the boy did not grow in the bush. Russel Ward (1914–1995) named the type in The Australian Legend and traced the national character to the man on the horse, independent, laconic, game, loyal to his mates. But Graeme Davison and others showed that the men who made the legend were city writers, that Paterson was a Sydney solicitor, that The Bulletin was an urban paper, and that the most urbanized people on earth chose for their national soul a lone horseman almost none of them had ever been. A country that lived in terraces and trams crowned a man it imagined on a mountain. Becker tells you why. A nation is a hero system too, and a new nation in the 1890s needed a path to permanence, and it had several on offer. It might have chosen the union’s hero of the many, or the empire’s hero of British arms, or it might have seen at last the custodial relation to country that had held the land for forty thousand years and called that the heroism. It chose the game rider, alone, who masters the country and wins his name. The choice told the nation what kind of immortality it wanted, and what kind it could not bear to see.

The boy never collects the colt. He collects the only wage his world pays, the wage Becker said all of us are working for whether we admit it or not. He goes over the edge so that men will say his name after he is gone, and the saying of it is the poem, and the poem is still here, and so, in the only sense his system allows, the man from Snowy River did not die. Whether that counts as winning depends on the house you are standing in when you ask.

Posted in Australia | Comments Off on The Man From Snow River

The Free Man at the Billabong

Posted on June 18, 2026 by Luke Ford

At Dagworth Station, near Winton, in the late summer of 1895, a young woman sits at the piano after dinner and plays a tune she half remembers from a brass band at the Warrnambool races. Her name is Christina Macpherson (1864-1936). Her family holds the run. In the room sits Andrew Barton Paterson (1864-1941), a Sydney solicitor who writes verse under the name Banjo, up from the city engaged to one woman and paying close attention to another. Twelve months earlier striking shearers burned the Dagworth woolshed, and a shearer named Samuel Hoffmeister was found dead by a waterhole, a bullet in him, rather than wait for the police. Paterson listens to the tune. He says he thinks he can put words to it. Before he leaves he has written the story of a swagman who steals a sheep, refuses arrest, drowns himself in a billabong, and goes on singing as a ghost.

The room holds the people the song will indict. A swagman carries his swag, his rolled blanket and few goods, walking station to station looking for work. The title is bush slang for that walking, the swag nicknamed Matilda, the waltz the long tramp down the track. A squatter, in the Australian of the period, is no homeless man but the opposite, a large landholder who once squatted on Crown land and now holds a fortune in wool and freehold. The troopers are mounted police. So the song sets a man who owns one blanket against a man who owns a district, and lets the man with the blanket win the only victory left to him.

One historian, Peter Forrest, argues the song began as a courtship trinket, written to charm Christina while Paterson’s fiancée Sarah Riley sat in the same colony, and that the later reading of it as a workers’ anthem is a misappropriation. Take the claim at its hardest. Suppose the national song started as a private flirtation in a squatter’s parlor, set to a borrowed Scottish air. The swagman it produced still outgrew the room. What a people pours into a song is the people’s work, not the poet’s intention.

Picture the swagman by the water. He boils his billy under a coolibah. A jumbuck comes down to drink, and he takes it and stuffs it in his tucker bag. He has no wages, no roof, no claim on anything but his own legs and the road in front of them. When he sings “you’ll come a-waltzing Matilda with me,” he sings to the swag, to the road, to the only companion a landless man keeps. The sheep is theft by the squatter’s law. By the swagman’s it is dinner and a quiet act of war.

Then the squatter rides up on his thoroughbred, three troopers behind him. Here is the other freedom in the song, and it sits a good saddle. The squatter’s freedom is the title deed, the run held under the Queen’s law, the right to call armed men when his property walks off on another man’s shoulder. The troopers carry the freedom of order, the peace of a colony where the jumbuck stays in the paddock it was born in. In their own account they keep the law, and the law lets a man sleep knowing his flock will stand there at dawn.

The swagman will not be taken. He jumps into the billabong and drowns. “You’ll never catch me alive, said he.” The last verse hands him the only immortality a poor man can reach. “His ghost may be heard as you pass by that billabong.” He cannot be owned, jailed, or finally killed, because the song keeps him singing. The squatter has the land. The swagman has forever.

Here Ernest Becker (1924-1974) helps. In The Denial of Death and Escape from Evil he argues that man knows he will die and cannot stand it, cannot bear to be an animal that eats, breeds, and rots like the jumbuck at the water. So he builds what Becker calls a hero system, a scheme of meaning that tells him how to count, how to be brave, who the enemy is, and how some part of him outlasts his body. A sacred value is the coin of that system. It buys cosmic significance. It tells a man his short life joins something that does not die. And because each people builds its own system, the same word buys immortality in one and buys nothing in the next.

So “freedom” in this song is not one thing. It splits the moment you ask whose freedom, and the splitting runs along the seams of every hero system that has ever sung it. There is no single rival reading. There are many, and they do not agree even on what the swagman did.

For the shearer at Dagworth in the strike year, freedom is the union and the rate. He has watched the squatters bring in non-union men and cut the price of a hundred sheep, and he knows that a shearer with no combination is a serf who happens to move. The man who burns the shed and the man who drowns in the waterhole belong to him. The swagman who refuses the troopers is the worker who refuses the wool cheque on the master’s terms. His ghost is a martyr, and the billabong is a grave the bosses cannot fill in.

For the squatter’s son who inherits the run, the same swagman is a thief, and freedom is the freehold. He grew up hearing that the shed his father built went up in the night, that good rams burned in their pens, that a man cannot improve a country if any drifter with a tucker bag may help himself to the increase. He sings the song at the woolgrowers’ dinner because everyone sings it, and he hears in it a warning dressed as a lark.

Move off the run and the ground itself changes. The billabong carries a name older than Dagworth. A black stockman who works the cattle on that country knows that his people drank this water and buried their dead in this ground long before a squatter pegged a run or a poet found a rhyme. The swagman walks free across cleared country, and the clearing came first. By one account the police who rode the district that season rode with a tracker and were hunting other business when they came on the waterhole. Whatever the truth of that day, the larger truth holds. The swagman’s freedom rests on a taking the song never names, the freedom of a poor white man to roam land emptied so that he could roam it. When the stockman hears the ghost in the billabong, he hears a latecomer on already-haunted ground.

Now bring a man off a boat. Piraeus to Port Melbourne, 1955, a cardboard suitcase and a name the foreman cannot say. He works the night shift, learns enough English to pass the citizenship test, and learns the swagman because his children sing it at school and the neighbors expect it over the chops and the beer. For him freedom is arrival, the right to belong to a country that did not have to take him. The song is the password. To know the jumbuck and the billabong, to sing the swagman without a stumble, proves he has crossed from guest to Australian. The free man on the road becomes, for the man who crossed the sea, the cost of admission.

Carry the song into a worse place. Gallipoli, 1915, or the desert outside Tobruk a generation on. A soldier sings the swagman in the trench because the swagman is the man who will not be taken, and the soldier hopes to be that man when the morning comes. Here freedom is the nation, a thing far enough from home and large enough to die for. The swagman’s drowning rehearses the digger’s death, the good death that buys a place on the memorial and a line in the school assembly forever. Becker would name the trade. The soldier gives his one body to the hero system and draws back deathlessness, his name read out each April while he lies in foreign ground.

Set the song in a church and it inverts. To the believer at the Pentecostal hall, freedom is freedom in the Lord, the soul cut loose from sin and bound to Him. The swagman who steals, despairs, and throws himself into the water is no hero at all. He is a warning, a man who met death without God and chose the billabong over repentance. The same ghost the union man calls a martyr the preacher calls a soul lost on the last night of its life.

Last, the man for whom the fight is over. A suburban accountant in 2026 sings it at the cricket, at the Australia Day barbecue, at the citizenship ceremony for the family next door, a beer in his hand and a paid day off on the calendar. His freedom is the long weekend and the right to grumble about the council. He cheers a thief and a suicide and then drives home to the mortgage on a block the squatter’s grandsons sold off in lots. He carries no swag. He has never slept rough except by accident. The song lends him the outlaw’s glamour for three minutes and charges him none of the outlaw’s price. Becker’s account sits here without strain. A settled, propertied, law-abiding people takes the cosmic shine of the man who owns nothing and answers to no one, and takes it cheap.

That last figure exposes the long joke buried in the national song. The squatter’s law won in 1895. The troopers kept their jobs, the freehold held, the wool went out, and the men who burned the shed went to court or went hungry. The swagman won the century. Australians stand at the football and sing the man their own police would arrest, their own courts would jail, their own banks would never lend a cent. Becker explains why the people feel no contradiction. A hero system can be performed without being lived. You can sing the free man and bank with the squatter, salute the swagman and call the troopers when your own jumbuck walks off, because the song asks for a feeling, not a life. The danger is paid by the man in the verse. The glory comes to the man on the couch.

This is why the song wears so well, and why no single rival reading can dislodge it. A myth that meant one fixed thing would have died with its quarrel. The shearers would have kept it as a strike song and the squatters would have buried it, and a hundred years on it would sit in a folklore archive next to the rest of the dead ballads. Instead it gives each hero system the swagman that system needs. The union man gets a martyr. The squatter gets a warning. The black stockman gets a song that sings over his country and forgets him. The migrant gets a password. The digger gets a rehearsal for his own good death. The believer gets a cautionary tale. The man with the mortgage gets a cheap thrill and a clear conscience. One swagman, one waterhole, one tune off a Scottish brass band, and seven different ways to feel that you will not finally die.

Stand by the billabong at Combo Waterhole today, where the track runs in off the highway and the red kangaroos shelter in what little shade there is, and you can still hear the thing Becker was pointing at. The water holds no body. The land holds no title that the first owners ever signed. The squatter is gone and the troopers are gone and the shearer is gone. What the place keeps is the ghost, and the ghost keeps singing, and every man who passes hears the freedom he already carried in. The swagman went into the water rather than be owned. A whole nation has been waltzing him ever since, each in the system that tells him what the drowning was for.

Posted in Australia | Comments Off on The Free Man at the Billabong

One Song, Many Heavens: “Jerusalem” and the Hero Systems It Holds Together

Posted on June 18, 2026 by Luke Ford

At Edgbaston on the first morning of an Ashes Test, the brass section of the Barmy Army finds the tune before the players reach the middle. A man in a replica shirt, three pints in by eleven, plants his feet and sings about a chariot of fire he has never thought about for a single waking second of his life. Around him twenty thousand throats take up Blake’s four questions and Parry’s slow climb. The Australians stand at the boundary rope and wait it out. Then the cricket starts.

Ernest Becker (1924-1974) would say that every one of those throats is buying the same thing the suffragist bought in 1918, the Women’s Institute member bought in a village hall in 1924, the Labour delegate bought in 1945, and the High Anglican waving a flag at the Royal Albert Hall buys on the last night of the Proms. Each is buying a place in something that does not die. That is the trade Becker put at the center of his work. Man knows he will rot. He cannot live with the knowledge, so he builds a hero system, a scheme of meaning that lets him earn the feeling that his life counts in a scale larger than his body and longer than his years. The hero system tells him what counts as significance and what he must do to deserve it. Live up to it and he wins a kind of immortality. Fail it and he is nothing, a thing that eats and excretes and stops.

What Becker did not stress, and what the song shows, is that one object can carry many hero systems at once. The cricket man and the suffragist and the Tory and the Welshman who refuses to sing it are not arguing about a song. They are running incompatible immortality projects through the same sixteen lines. The lines hold because they stay abstract. Blake (1757-1827) gives them a city, a land, and a war, and never says whose. “Build Jerusalem.” Each man hears a different city. “England’s green and pleasant land.” Each hears a different England. “I will not cease from Mental Fight.” Each hears a different war and a different enemy. The vagueness is not a flaw in the poem. The vagueness is what lets a nation that agrees on almost nothing sing one thing together.

Start with the city.

For the man who set the tune, the city was a truce he did not want. Robert Bridges (1844-1930), the Poet Laureate, found Blake’s stanzas in 1916 and wanted music to stiffen a country bleeding out on the Somme. He asked Hubert Parry (1848-1918) to write something a crowd could roar. Parry wrote it in a day and handed it to Walford Davies with a line that has the whole problem in it. “Here’s a tune for you, old chap. Do what you like with it.” He gave the city away at the moment of its birth, and people did what they liked with it. Parry soon turned against the war-fever movement that first sang it. He withdrew. Then Millicent Fawcett (1847-1929) asked whether the women fighting for the vote might have it, and Parry, relieved, said yes, and orchestrated it for their concert, and assigned the copyright to the suffrage union. For Fawcett the city was the franchise. The holy city was a country where a woman counted as a citizen, where her name went in a ledger that decided things. She built her Jerusalem with petitions and prison terms, and the song told her that the building was sacred work and that she would be part of the wall whether or not she lived to see the gate.

For Clement Attlee (1883-1967) and the men who came home from a second war and threw out Churchill, the city was the welfare state. Attlee promised to build a new Jerusalem and meant hospitals, council houses, a pension, a school place for a miner’s son. The land of the song was a country that fed its poor. The Labour conference still closes by singing it, next to “The Red Flag,” and the men of the Durham Miners’ Gala sing it over their banners, and for them the eternity on offer is the commonwealth that outlasts the man, the union that buries you and looks after your widow. The city is justice, and the worker who pours his life into the lodge and the branch earns a place in something that does not stop when his lungs do.

Walk into a village hall in the 1920s and the city changes again. The Women’s Institute took the song as its own without a vote, the way a family takes a name. The press called it jam and Jerusalem and meant it as a sneer, and the women wore the sneer like a sash. Here the holy city is the parish that holds. It is the cake stall, the flower show, the minutes read aloud, the slow keeping of a place against the years. The eternity is continuity. A woman gives her afternoons to the institute and joins a line of women that runs back before her and on past her death, and the green and pleasant land she sings about is the lane behind her house and the church she will lie beside.

Now the patriot at the Albert Hall on the last night, flag in each fist, who would call the Labour man a fool and the suffragist a memory. For him the city is England herself, chosen, Anglican, imperial in the old grain even now. King George V (1865-1936) heard the orchestral version and said he liked it better than the national anthem, and a certain Englishman has agreed with his king ever since. The land is the realm. The war is the long war for the realm’s honor, fought now with a song instead of a fleet. His immortality is the nation. He will die and England will not, and by singing he folds himself into her and borrows her permanence.

These cities do not agree. The franchise, the welfare state, the parish, the realm. Becker’s point is that they need not agree to do the same work for the men who hold them. Each city tells its holder that his small life feeds a large and lasting thing. Each lets him be a hero on terms he can meet. The song does not reconcile the cities. It lets four crowds who would not share a pub share a tune, because the word Jerusalem is empty enough to fill four ways.

Then there is the man who wrote it, who meant none of this.

Blake stood trial for sedition in 1803 and was acquitted, charged after he said “Damn the King!” to a soldier in his garden. He cheered the French Revolution while England fought it. His city is not a country at all. His Jerusalem is the freedom of the imagination from the cage of reason and law and church. The dark Satanic Mills, the phrase the country has spent two centuries pinning on the cotton trade, may not be mills in Blake’s hand. Scholars have long argued that the mills are the churches, the grinding machines of doctrine and conformity, and a Bishop of Durham, N. T. Wright (b. 1948), granted the point from his own pulpit. F. W. Bateson (1900-1978) called the song an “anti-clerical paean of free love” and found it droll that the churches and the women’s clubs sang it without hearing what they sang. The bow of burning gold and the arrows of desire are weapons of the inner apocalypse, the Mental Fight against the buffered, rule-bound, deadened self. Blake’s hero is the prophet who sees, is appalled, and speaks. His eternity is vision. He inscribed under the poem a wish that all the Lord’s people might be prophets.

The country took this man’s furious inward gospel and made it the music of the establishment he hated. That is not a betrayal anyone planned. It is Becker’s logic working as it must. A hero system needs a sacred object, and a sacred object that stays a little blurred can serve hero systems its maker never imagined. The vessel survives by not insisting on its contents.

The same logic has a hard turn, and the song shows that too. Becker wrote a second book, Escape from Evil, and it notes that the hero system that gives a man his immortality also gives him his enemy. To be one of the chosen builders, there must be someone outside the wall. The men who march under a nationalist flag have sung this song too, and they sing it to mean a white and narrow England, and they are not misreading the word so much as filling its emptiness with their own love and fear. The Welshman and the Scot hear the same emptiness and refuse the song, because the word in the line is England, not Britain, and a hymn that lets the Englishman feel chosen reminds them they are the unchosen next door. The arrows of desire point outward as easily as in. Every Jerusalem has a wall, and a wall has two sides, and the men on the wrong side know the song means them.

And yet the vessel keeps opening. A South African soprano sang a new setting at the Proms in 2020, written by Errollyn Wallen (b. 1958), born in Belize, who put blues and dissonance under Blake’s words, and a part of the country howled at the desecration while another part heard the city widen to take her in. The London Community Gospel Choir has sung it, and a gay men’s chorus, and, in one documentary survey of who claims the thing, naturists. The crowd that holds the song now is not the crowd Parry wrote for or the crowd Blake cursed. The word Jerusalem is still empty enough to fill. New men and new women pour new eternities into it, and the old patriot at the Albert Hall and the new singer onstage are, against everything they believe about each other, performing the same act. Each reaches past his own death by joining a thing that does not die.

The film took its title from the chariot and made the song into the music of two runners chasing a kind of permanence on a beach, one for his God and one for his people, neither for England, and the country wept at both and called the picture its own. Chariots of Fire is the song in miniature. A vessel that every watcher fills with the eternity he already wanted.

Back at Edgbaston the three-pint man finishes the last line and does not know that he has sung an anti-clerical hymn to free love, a suffrage anthem, a socialist promise, a parish keepsake, and an imperial boast, all in ninety seconds, and that the Australian at the rope has understood none of it and feared all of it. He sits down. He believes he has sung about cricket and about being English and about beating the old enemy, and he has, because the song let him. The wonder is not that one country sings one song. The wonder is that the song lets each man bury a different fear under the same tune, and call the burial England, and go home feeling, for the length of a Test match, that he will not die.

Posted in Cricket | Comments Off on One Song, Many Heavens: “Jerusalem” and the Hero Systems It Holds Together