Sunday, September 4, 2011

A Portraiture of Quakerism II: Prohibitions

In volume one of A Portraiture of Quakerism, abolitionist Thomas Clarkson systematically works through the various activities, common to his English upper class, that are prohibited by the Quakers, and endeavors to explain the rational basis for these prohibitions. In this post, so it stays reasonably short, I will look only at one. His goal is to make Quakerism, which no doubt appeared at times a bizarre, fundamentalist (ie, arbitrary and irrational) and forbidding cult intelligible to people of a certain class and education. While framing his story as describing the “quaint Other,” Clarkson’s agenda, I imagine, is to render Quakerism more respectable and rational, in order, thus, to render abolitionism more respectable and rational. Notably, Portraiture appeared in 1806, a year before legislation was passed banning the slave trade (though not slavery) in the British Empire. It is true too, that over the course of 150 years, Quakerism had in fact shifted from its radical and apocalyptic beginnings (early Quakers did not think the End Times were coming soon—they thought, with the execution of Charles I that the End Times HAD ARRIVED, a concept known as Realized Eschatology)—to a group that, influenced deeply by Enlightenment thought, and the reality that the New Jerusalem had not yet descended, had become more rational. Whether this embrace of rationalism was a step forward or backwards is, of course, still debated among contemporary Quakers

To a modern Quaker reader, the prohibitions Clarkson has so far described--against gambling/lotteries/games of chance, music, dancing, theater, novels and blood sports—break into two categories: prohibitions that (in a softer way) are still strongly accepted and prohibitions that are rejected. Modern Quakers would probably accept and support the prohibitions against gambling/lotteries/games of chance and blood sports and reject the prohibitions on music, dance, theatre and novels.

The Quaker prohibition against gambling which Clarkson justifies at length we would sum up as recognition of its addictive nature—the Quakers, rationally, want to avoid a pastime that can lead to ruin. Other comments he makes as reasons to avoid gambling, lotteries and card playing—the last, which we know from Jane Austen, was a common pastime—include their tendency to be a waste of time, their tendency to habituate people to the concept of effortless gain and their tendency to excite passions.

Clarkson emphasizes rationality when he writes: “For when they [Quakers} consider man, as a reasonable being, they are of opinion, that his occupations should be rational. …. “ and “The Quakers are not so superstitious as to imagine that there can be any evil in cards, considered abstractedly as cards, or in some of the other amusements, that have been mentioned.” But cards take away from more fruitful occupations.

A chief objection, then and now, to gaming Clarkson writes is the following: “For by gaming a man learns to pursue his own interest solely and explicitly, and to rejoice at the loss of others, as his own gain, grieve at their gain, as his own loss, thus entirely reversing the order established by providence for social creatures.”

Reading this section in light of Jane Austen, I’m reminded of Lydia in Pride and Prejudice, whom we find at the beginning of the novel so engrossed in a game of lotteries at Mrs. Phillip’s that she hardly notices Wickham. This characterizes her as immature and childlike, impulsively fixated on the moment to the exclusion of all else, but also, in light of Clarkson’s words on gambling and gaming, as in an environment that excites her passions and primes her for “quick win” risk-taking—in her case, being the first married of the Bennett sisters. She does rejoice at her gain of a husband ahead of her sisters and Austen does lead us to understand Lydia’s “elevation” as a grotesque reversal of the social order, all the more galling for Lydia’s cluelessness about the sacrifices that saved her.

I think today about the state lotteries and casinos, and personally, can't help but agree with the early Quakers on the corrupting influence of this. I too think that the idea "I too could be rich tomorrow," no matter how remote, encourages people to support regressive tax laws that make it harder to build a juster society. I tend to believe that there is something insidious and destructive in the valorization of the pursuit of quick riches, especially when it is only for the very, very few and the rest are left in poverty ... but the question arises: in prohibiting gambling, lotteries and games of chance, are the Quakers merely attending to the outward shell and not the inner soul? Or, as George Lindbeck suggests in the Nature of Doctrine, does the outward (social) form of the faith largely determine the inward experience? Where do you fall on lotteries?









7 comments:

Diane said...

A friend, Ellen, who is not a Quaker, made the following comment on this:

I agree generally with all Diane has said -- the lottery is a strongly regressive form of taxation when the state indulges in it. Our founding fathers loathed the French lotteries -- these were part of the ancien regime in France.

I didn't mention that Mill in his brilliant treatise on civil and social liberty was the one who had set me thinking -- because Mill makes it explicit -- how little tolerant the average person is of differing social habits.

One problem - and it's the problem socialism (and communism by extension faced) is if you control the surface, do you reach the depths? You forbid people to game but by doing so how many people do you teach to dislike the value of trying to fleece others? or grow rich quick themselves as an ultimate goal. If you forbid the more egregious practices of capitalism, do you at all curb the values and type of person who would ruthlessly exploit.

Diane said...

A friend, Ellen, who is not a Quaker, made the following comment on this:

I agree generally with all Diane has said -- the lottery is a strongly regressive form of taxation when the state indulges in it. Our founding fathers loathed the French lotteries -- these were part of the ancien regime in France.

I didn't mention that Mill in his brilliant treatise on civil and social liberty was the one who had set me thinking -- because Mill makes it explicit -- how little tolerant the average person is of differing social habits.

One problem - and it's the problem socialism (and communism by extension faced) is if you control the surface, do you reach the depths? You forbid people to game but by doing so how many people do you teach to dislike the value of trying to fleece others? or grow rich quick themselves as an ultimate goal. If you forbid the more egregious practices of capitalism, do you at all curb the values and type of person who would ruthlessly exploit.

Hystery said...

I was reared to avoid lotteries and games of chance. This came not from a Quaker background, but from the influence of my mother's Edwardian Methodist grandmother. When I began to worship with Friends, cautions against gambling felt very much like home. I teach my own children to avoid such things because I want them to know that as far as possible, we offer our work to the world and do not expect to leave the enrichment of our lives to chance. I believe that all people are entitled to care and well-being, and that all must contribute from their store of personal treasure whether of property, intellect, talent, or labor. It has somthing to do with equality. Whether we are talking about a game or an economy, it doesn't sit well with me that good fortune rests only with a few. I'd rather not let luck play such a large role in life when learning to share both the work and the treasure could feed so many more of us.

Diane said...

Hystery,

Amen, sister.

Marshall Massey (Iowa YM [C]) said...

A thoughtful and winning essay! I much appreciated your take on this, and especially your thoughts about parallels with Jane Austen.

A few thoughts of my own —

Clarkson was certainly inclined to portray a “rational” Quakerism, and one gets the sense, reading his Portraiture, that the prosperous, respectable Friends he knew in London were inclined toward rationality as well.

I doubt, though, that the Friends of the U.S. hinterlands, places like North Carolina and Ohio, were equally inclined to “rationalize” their Quakerism. My guess is that, for them, religion rested far more on the logic of the Bible than on the logic of the Enlightenment.

My guess is that, in most though not all Friends meetings of Clarkson’s time, the prohibition of gambling was so interwoven with the general emphasis on perfection and mourning and the importance of maintaining the testimonies and everything else, that there was no “merely outward and not inward” about it: everything was known and felt as outward and inward at the same time.

Still, an individual reared in the Quaker faith might be so shallow as to wall off the faith from his inward self, and only offer an outward conformity. Melville’s portrait of the two Quaker ship-owners in Moby Dick is surely a portrait of such people. I doubt that there is any religion anywhere that can guarantee to win through to the full inward comprehension and consent of every one of its children.

kevin roberts said...

hey diane

write about this:

Or, as George Lindbeck suggests in the Nature of Doctrine, does the outward (social) form of the faith largely determine the inward experience? Where do you fall on lotteries?

Jay T. said...

The evils I sense in my own heart when I have taken an interest in gaming are:
--the anticipation and excitement for a potential gain,
--the sorrow over not gaining anything.

But the potential gain is neither something I worked toward or something granted through God's grace. All that excitement and sorrow seems baseless, overwrought and screwed up. It doesn't feel blessed *or* deserved.


Typically I avoid door prizes and lotteries. For the last one I wrote on my event registration, "No door prizes, please." They still called my name. Twice. To quell the embarrassment and satisfy the prize volunteers, I brought a friend to the prize table to claim whatever it was they had for me. In order to avoid anticipation and sorrow, I didn't stick around to find out what it was.

One of the sorrows I live with is the financing of a small percentage of public education by the Oregon State Lottery. I've worked in public schools since before that was enacted. I voted no, but the measure passed readily.

So I've found it hard to avoid gaming.