 | Chapter 2, on "The Uses of Sin," is particularly interesting to us, as what we like to think of as sophisticated moderns (or post-moderns). What does Ehrenhalt mean by his title? Do you agree? Why or why not? Isn't there a certain freedom to be had when the choices are more limited, when people share a "don't even think about it" mentality? Isn't an adolescent, e.g., more "free," in some ways, by not having to decide about drugs, pre-marital sex, rebellion against authority? (Or, at least, having strong internalized sanctions against each, whether a "conscience," "super-ego," or "Fear of the Lord.") What was included under "sin," then, that we consider "normal" today? Is this progress? Have we lost something? Or, have we gained more than we have lost? What do you think?
The interesting thing about guilt, of course, is that it is the stimulus behind much artistic creation, especially in literature. Think e.g., of the novels written by "marginal" people, perhaps most obviously, Jewish-American writers in the Twentieth Century [Henry Roth, Philip Roth, Norman Mailer, Norman Podhoretz ]. Could the argument be made that, if we have less to feel guilty about, there will be less creativity? Or/and, as the standards as to what is "good" become more malleable, there will be more "art, but an increasing proportion will be of dubious value? Discuss.
|
