The Rigby Highland Stalker. The Rifle as archetype and sacred symbol. Easy to love.
For me, the rifle is sacred.
Some of you will readily accept that statement; maybe it’s sacred for you, too. Some may think that “sacred” is pushing things too far. Some of you will recoil (sorry) in disgust.
We all have our sacred objects, whether we pin that loaded term on them or not. Really, they are not sacred in and of themselves, they are sacred symbols; they represent values and life ways that have profound meaning to us. To me, the rifle represents challenge; skill; delightful hours spent teaching my daughter; the power to defend.
For those in whom the same object conjures deep revulsion, the rifle represents something very different — an engine of destruction; perhaps a relic of atavistic male aggression. The rifle is profane; calling it “sacred” is prima facie evidence that one is a “gun nut.”
No less sacred, but not so pretty. Not so easy to love. For many, an object of fear and loathing.
*
It’s difficult to bridge divides and find common ground when your sacred is my profane, or when what I deeply value disgusts you. Our politics today is loaded with symbols, a minefield richly sown with the sacred and the profane: Race; guns; abortion; gender; immigration.
In this world, a border wall isn’t just a border wall, it’s a symbol, a container that holds whatever meaning we can to pack into it. There’s no actual debate on immigration policy, because “the wall” isn’t even really about immigration anymore. It’s about national and personal identity and a referendum on the character of Donald Trump and … and…
When is a wall not a wall? When it’s The Wall.
Political operatives call such matters “wedge issues” for a reason — they drive people apart. Constructive debate and compromise become difficult if not impossible, for who is willing to compromise on the sacred in favor of the profane?
Because these issues scrape agonizingly across the nerves of the sacred and the profane, large swaths of the body politic regard those who disagree with them with disgust. The conservative commentator’s voice drips with gleeful loathing as intones the word “liberal”; the “progressive” relishes the scorn in describing the “deplorables.”
For decades, materialist social scientists, economists and historians have been driven nuts by the supposedly irrational behavior of voters, who consistently seem to vote against their own economic interests. Materialists err in assuming that economic interests are the only interests that do or should matter. In fact, people are generally quite a bit less passionate about their economic interests than they are about the symbols that represent for them a worthy and meaningful life.
As columnist Jonah Goldberg notes:
“Nowhere in the world, at any time, in any place, in any culture, has economics been the only consideration in political life. Fighting for the ‘Glory of Rome’ is not an economic rallying cry. The split between Sunni and Shia may have economic components, but only a fool would argue it is fundamentally about economics.”
The tangle gets knottier when we assume that our outlook is rational and those who disagree with us are being irrational. Yet it becomes ever more evident that most of our ideas come out of a complex of intuitions — gut responses — that we later dress up with a gloss of rationalization. In his book The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt note that:
“We are deeply intuitive creatures whose gut feelings drive our strategic reasoning. This makes it difficult — but not impossible — to connect with those who live in other matrices, which are often built on different configurations of the available moral foundations.”
Whatever consensus ever existed in the United States about what is sacred has broken down. We have allowed or participated in the abridgement and effective abrogation of many of the fundamental tenets encoded in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, which in a Republic such as ours should be held sacred by all — if anything is.
Free speech is to be shouted down or banned if it is perceived to wound sensibilities on campus; the right to keep and bear arms is called a relic of the 18th century by those determined to infringe upon it; we have all acquiesced in a profound level of intrusiveness into our lives in the name of safety and security.
It’s hard to discern a path forward. Perhaps there isn’t one — maybe we are, as some believe, locked in a cultural Cold Civil War — in which case a lot of us have a big problem because we don’t fit on a “side.”
Or maybe we can just take a long step back and leave each other the hell alone, each to his or her own conception of the sacred. I’m game for that. Truly. But I have an abiding suspicion that the zealots who are determined that their sacred must be exalted and their version of the profane must be thrown down will never be content to live and let live or, as the popular bumper‐sticker appeal has it,
In the interest of providing prescription for the diagnosis, I propose we define for ourselves what we truly hold sacred and what we are willing to do to defend our sacred. What hills are we willing to die on? Where do we draw lines and say “no farther”? I am not inclined by nature to seek out monsters to slay — I have no desire to create opportunities to tilt with the profane. But nor do I want to allow that which disgusts me to intrude into my life. How to build an effective shield against the profane?
The answers to these questions are surely already embedded in these pages. I reckon that any of us can map our own Sacred Realm in a matter of minutes. So the real question is one of tactics. How do we defend it?
Well done. A vote for reason.
Great read. Thanks, Jim.
The WALL…
A sign on the Canadian Memorial for Peace reads:
“If you are more fortunate than others, build a longer table, not a taller fence.”
Such a far cry from the vitriol spilling from our Chief Executive’s mouth.
Thx bro.
Agreed and well articulated. In my limited experience, when humans are unfiltered be it stress, fear or anger induced, you recognize we essentially want the same basic things. Also at some point, we all revert literally, or figuratively, to punching each other in the face.
A recent “fight brewing” call involved two hybrid drivers yelling at each other over an organic foods store parking spot, eco‐grocery bag in hand and coexist stickers proudly displayed on the bumpers. It was exquisite.…. 🙂
Namaste
Perfect. I remain astonished by how many people out driving around aren’t wearing pants. You don’t know that until you know it. And then you can’t forget.
Exquisite, indeed.
You will find out who is naked when the tide goes out…
Saddle Tramp, I’m adding that saying to my possibles bag!
Jim,
As always you have broached a subject with total considerations for all sides and laid it on the line and staked your ground. I respect that. Even though you did not give your specific definition or connotation of the word “sacred” other than being the opposite of “profane” it is easily understood by implication that you are placing it as being very highly valued, but not in a religious or worshipful way (I would assume). I also appreciate weaponry for it’s engineering and for it’s craftsmanship alone as in any finely made tool. The precision and power of them cannot be denied. I always especially enjoyed going out and just plinking with a .22 rifle. It is very addictive so I do understand the appeal of it. I was brought up around both hunting and fishing. At that time one never gave much thought to it as compared to today’s controversial wrangling. I have of course grown in my understandings of potentials in either directions from let’s say the more innocent wrist rocket sling shot (which I had) to the most extreme lethality being nuclear weapons. So, where does one rest at what is useful, reasonable and necessary? How powerful a weapon and how much ammunition is required for a private citizen? What is the minimum, practical or maximum amount required to feel safe or for sporting and hunting purposes? Then you take this and extrapolate that thought regarding national interests worldwide and you get the idea. I have driven by the Hawthorne Army Depot several times with all of those bunkers silently waiting. I have also viewed the Fort Wingate Army Depot near Gallup, NM from many hikes up to the top of the Pyramid trail in Red Rock whike ironically looking down on all of those teepee or pyramid shaped bunkers below. On one hike a Navajo woman I met on the trail proudly pointed down remarking on their (The Navajo’s) contribution to the war effort. This is direct evidence of the evolution of the Chinese invention of gun powder. To quote Leonard Cohen from a song “I’m guided by the beauty of our weapons.” Yes, they are seductive. How can I not say how impressed I am when seeing a fighter jet scream off the deck of the deck of a massive aircraft carrier. If there is no other option I am glad that we have the best, but that becomes a never ending loop we can never extricate ourselves from. It’s baked in the cake. So how do we modulate this inherently self destructive bargain. What is the critical mass? How long a wall? How tall a wall? How many weapons? This is the problem in my opinion. We have reached a level of environmental and political concerns that is getting rather alarming, that is unless we want to return to the barbaric means of the past. Some would say it is inevitable or even natural. We know the world is full of bad guys. Let your guard down and they will take over. Who are the bad guys? We are stuck in that quicksand for as far as I can see. Perhaps we can only exalt the ideal and suffer the reality as we try to stave off the inhumanity of it’s most unwelcome attributes. The opinion about a gun is determined by what end of it you are looking at. Nobody said it was simple. Therein lies the rub…
P.S. Also, a thanks to John C. above for his appropriate comment and statement. I absolutely concur!!
I certainly subscribe to that belief.
in the context of the piece, the question you ask regarding “What is the minimum, practical or maximum” SEEMS amenable to rational policy construction. But when we are operating in the sacred vs. profane matrix, we are too vulnerable to approach the subject dispassionately. We have passed the point (culturally, not individually) where we can approach these hot button issues with anything resembling calm deliberation — and it’s not in most politicians interests to do so, because an inflamed base has more electoral throw weight than a genuine policy accomplishment. Hence, we argue over a symbolic wall instead of a coherent immigration policy.
I agree wholeheartedly Jim.
I really don’t think Trump could care less if he actually gets an actual wall or not. He just wants to tell his base and his syncophants that he got it. Then you have the opportunist party members selling their soul (my opinion) for the gains they wanted to make. Everything is purposely twisted and contorted at any cost to truth just to win. I am not new to the ways of politicians in government or corporations. They are virtually one in the same. We have reached an all time new low in regards to what we should know better by now. We don’t and again such is the fate of mankind. That does not mean nothing can be done, it just means new tactics must be used. We don’t seem to really want truth as it always takes something away from what we still want to hold onto. A bigger problem requires a bigger solution. Wholesale slaughter is not the answer. We need a slow but sure reversal that does not pull down the temple on top of us. Hot topics for certain. It really needs no further illustration as that. My irks me to no end is how blatantly obvious it should be but is not. Our burden to bear. Borders, legal limits and practical and reasonable solutions always cross someone else’s interpretations of wants and desires or what’s a humanity for. When does it cross the line to oppression? We all too often find out too late. It’s as simple as it is complicated. Thanks for your fine attempt at it.
Here’s some blues I will share with you. Sung with real meaning. It kind of fits my mood right now:
https://youtu.be/IF6q6XKKrik
From this side of the fence, reasonable and practical are the concerns of the individual. Hunting and sporting don’t figure much into what’s left of the occasion.
…though for giggles, I’d be interested to see what happens if we shift the onus for national defense from the federal government to the individual. Strange as it might be to see a neighborhood watch with privately‐maintained Abrams tanks and Apache gunships, it’d probably do a number to keep crime down while cutting out a significant chunk of pork‐barrel defense spending and limiting our foreign entanglements somewhat.
This begs for a short story treatment…
Long story would be fine, too.
Sigh.….Most of my stories tend to be too long for the modern technological communication compression now in vogue. Which is symbolic of my LIFE, as well. I am not content to remain in my little cubicle allotted to me by hyper‐civilization, but roam abroad across many artificial human boundaries regularly, as nomadic, territory ranging people and animals have done since life began. And I will continue to do so, so long as I am physically able. As for rambling on the computer–I think I’ve managed that fair decent, too, if to the dismay of the techno‐abbreviators of these times. So a long story? Please, elaborate, and don’t leave out a single detail or nuance!
Imagine families getting robocalls and mailings from Israel, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine and whatever tinpot African oligarchies we’re propping up for donations.
A little more than ironic and uncannily familiar.
Watch to the very end for the full affect for those not already aware of this for some good old western justice…
Trackdown: The End Of The World (1958)
Full episilode
https://youtu.be/kGWL1mMJHss
And we did not even mention “sacred” cows yet. One man’s is while another man butchers his. I am a meat n’ potatoes guy myself, but understand that there is room for both.
By the way to the uninitiated Trackdown also has associations with Sam Peckinpah and Steve McQueen and some episodes were actually historically based. For my money though I prefer the radio show TALES OF THE TEXAS RANGERS. Hell, Trackdown was about the frontier…
Just an interesting aside on the “sacred cow” bit, that some might find interesting(as I did, as an Anthropology Major while incarcerated on the Reservation)–although it does tie‐in with WHY some people’s sacred cows may have meaning for them, whereas outside cultures just don’t get it. Often, there is very good reason for it. Two great, very readable, interesting books on this subject, showing the whys human cultures develop–often for environmental survival reasons–were by the controversial author Marvin Harris, in his “Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches”, and “Cannibals and Kings”. In the first(to compress this considerably for this format–ahem!) the seeming(to westerners) illogical stance of Hindu culture revering the cow to the point where they are not butchered and eaten as in so many cultures(despite widespread poverty and hunger in some Hindu countries) points out that cows killed and eaten will actually INCREASE famine, as the cows are needed to plow the fields for agriculture(which feeds far more people overall), and also provide milk and butter and other dairy products all their productive lives, and are far more useful a commodity alive than as butchered meat. Something us beef hungry Westerners don’t consider when using the term “sacred cow”.Just something to ruminate on(ahem! again!)
You really did that, didn’t you?
Ahem!!
Lane, for your entertainment and others I will take your ahem and raise you one more. One of my favorite museums is The Bower Museum in Santa Ana. I go there often for their many great temporary exhibits and always go again to their permanent exhibit called Spirits and Headhunters.
In fact starting this week as part of the exhibit a special guest will be coming and I will be sure to attend.
The Bowers never disappoints from the ease of attending (parking is a snap) to the quality of the exhibits and all the fine California art and history. A beautiful building too. Spirits and Headhunters leaves an indelible and powerful impression. See it if you ever get the chance.
Savage Harvest by Carl Hoffman is paired with the permanent exhibit, Spirits and Headhunters.
Savage Harvest is an investigation into the 1961 disappearance of Michael Rockefeller in Dutch New Guinea. Hoffman finally solves this decades‐old mystery and illuminates a culture transformed by years of colonial rule, whose people continue to be shaped by ancient customs and lore. By combining history, art, colonialism, adventure, and ethnography, Hoffman gives us a fascinating portrait of the clash between two civilizations. 304 pp.
Location: Spirits and Headhunters Gallery
Discussion dates:
Thursday, January 17: 1 — 2 PM
Saturday, January 19: 10:30 — 11:30 AM
A little more info:
https://www.bowers.org/index.php/exhibitions/current-exhibitions/150-spirits-and-headhunters-art-of-the-pacific-islands
Bon Appetit…
— ST
[Ahem] …
Yes Lane and appreciate you going “deeper” on these sacred issues. I think it was Confucius who advised learning a cultures taboos before traveling there. Good advice. You could feed more, more efficiently and healthier with a vegetarian diet. I would not mention that to the RANGE MAGAZINE however. They are very proactive for raising beef for consumption. I like a good balance of both. Vegetarianism and veganism is not my choice. I am an omnivore right or wrong. As I said there is room for both. I just visited (and have often) the Mandir in Chino Hills just this afternoon. I also visit often the Tzu Chi Buddhist Foundation in San Dimas on the old Cal Poly grounds. A beautiful campus. They hit the gong for lunch and everyone is invited for a free vegetarian lunch. I respect diverse culture and abhor narrow mindedness in all respects. I also understand the perceived arbitrary reaction as well. I do stop at cannibalism and fortunate have not ever had to make that perverse choice. We all rationalize for whatever reason whether that be a practical one or one of an esteemed value. I draw the line at nuclear weapons as nothing but pure and evil destruction. That leaves a big gap to fill. Where does one draw the line? Somebody is going to eat a cactus sandwich while someone else is dining on caviar. Thanks for stepping in Lane…
[Ahem] [Ahem] …
Not to step on any sacred toes here, but I would say this. Lane, the Sacred Cow bit is a little more complicated (historically and otherwise) than what you mentioned here, but you are off to a good start by not just viewing it at face value. There are other nuance such as a reverence for their gentleness just fur starters. You have provided a good example though as to how false ideas have their genesis. Amongst many environmentalists the cattle industry in America is demonized for an inefficient use of resources and a source of pollution for very poor return on investment. We enjoy many luxuries for certain. I have also seen very compelling evidence of (to your point) of the far more efficient benefit of grains, etc. So when does the sacred and the practical meet? Wars have been fought from time immemorial over such quandaries or less. Weaponry and the weaponization of food and resources are an ill wind that can bring no good, yet we continue to fall on our own swords. The devil’s bargain. Winston Churchill said he wanted to spend his first one million years in heaven painting so he could get to the bottom of the subject. No mention of fighting wars or of being a warrior. For the rest of us we remain stuck down here. Damn!!
Powerline (admittedly a conservative blog) has a pretty good post on individual defense in light of the finding of Jayme Closs, the 13 YO girl who was kidnapped a couple of months ago in Wisconsin by a guy that killed her parents.
She escaped the other day and a passing woman recognized her and went to a neighboring house with the words-“Get a Gun, we don’t know if he is after us.”
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/01/armed-and-ready.php
Yep.