Part II
HISTORICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL REASONING
No discussion of the aesthetics of any group should be held without taking into account some of the sociological and historical influences that shaped their tradition. Here I will concentrate only on those influences which have affected Ethical Culture's aesthetic tastes.
1. Jewish Influences - The founder of the Ethical Culture Movement, most of its early members, and a significant number of members to date are Jewish. The austerity of the traditional Jewish service is mostly the result of Biblical injunctions against idolatry and image making. Most notably, the second of the "ten" commandments includes the admonition that "You shall not make for yourself an idol......You shall not bow down to worship them" (Exodus Chapter 20:4-5). It is interesting to note that many of the Mosaic commandments are copies of similar edits from older civilizations, such as the Mesopotamia shurper series17 However, the admonition against image making is unique to Hebrew culture. It is consistent with the view that the Hebrews should set themselves apart from others who dwelled in their land. The ancient Hebrews dwelled in a land full of tribes who used sacred images, and this second commandment is probably an attempt to maintain Hebrew distinction.
A similar emphasis against "image making" rose during the Middle Ages, and was heavily influenced by Talmudic and halachic wrestling. The emphasis has to do with the Hebrew root of the word for "idol," which can also be construed to mean "conceptualization." Thus, not only is it prohibited to make an "idol" for a God, neither shall you attempt to force God into an easily manipulated philosophical construct. To avoid breaking both interpretations of the meaning, no picture of God (or his attributes) nor representation of God is permitted within synagogues.18
The ban against image making is felt even to this day in Jewish culture. Some changes did occur with the Reform Movement, especially as a result of the Pittsburgh Platform's Eight Planks which were drafted following a conference in 1885.19 Heavily involved in the Jewish Reformation Movement was Samuel Adler, the father of Felix Adler, and his congregation of Temple Emanuel (many of whom broke off from this congregation to found the Ethical Culture Movement). Samuel Adler was quite the reformer himself. Indeed in one letter to the Chicago Sinai Congregation Adler wrote:
"I would state that the first and most important step for the congregation to take is to free its service of shackling lies, to remove from it mention of things and wishes which we would not utter if it had to be done in an intelligible manner. Such are the lamentations about oppression and persecution, the petitions for the restoration of the sacrificial cult, for the return of Israel to Palestine, the hope for a personal Messiah, and for the resurrection of the body. In the second Place, let us eliminate fiction and exaggeration; and in the third place, make the service clear, intelligible, instructive, and inspiring...20"
This firebrand letter reveals the reformatory style of Felix Adler's father and reveals the kind of rhetoric that his congregation was familiar with. This congregation would eventually carry many of these same ideals with them to Ethical Culture. The Jewish admonition against image making coupled with an attempt to modernize the liturgy prepared many "Jewish" Ethical Culturists for a service devoid of traditional trappings.
Finally, within some Jewish traditions the lack of color and pageantry within synagogues was partially an attempt to distinguish the Diaspora meeting houses from the holy Temple in Jerusalem. The original Temple was highly ornate, priests wore colorful robes and breastplates, and many ornaments decorated the rooms. When the Temple was destroyed, there developed an emphasis away from such decorations to further elevate the sanctity of the destroyed structure.
2. Christian Roots - The rise of "images" within Christian religion is interesting when you consider that many early Christians were in fact Jews. Paul's missionary activities among the Romans did certainly introduce Judeo-Christian ideas to a populace familiar with idols and images, but there is no indication that the early Christians continued this "pagan" tradition. In fact, quite the opposite, as Paul initially warned the early Christians to avoid such practices and to maintain their Jewish roots. However, never one to let tradition stop his mission, Paul does allow the first cracks in the wall of separation of Christians from images to occur. In First Corinthians, Chapter 8, Paul recognizes that many Roman citizens (and new "Christians") are surrounded and immersed in a culture replete with idols. Paul allows that eating food previously given to an idol is not a sin, since the idol doesn't mean anything to a new Christian anyway.21
By the third century, however, Christianity had finally come into it's own, partially due to the political support of Emperor Constantine. During this period of time, Christianity adopted many Roman customs, which dominate the church even to this day. For example, the polity and hierarchical structure of the church was a mirror of the Roman State.22 Much of early Christian art was merely an adaptation of already existing Roman pagan art, and church "uniforms" were copied from Roman courtly costumes. Constantine's new Byzantine city, Constantinople, was made capital in 330 C.E. During the reign of Theodosius the Great, Christian art and pageantry attained its full imperial form, and the luxuries of the Roman Empire took on a decidedly more Christian theme.23 It was also during this period that Christian art finally shifted away from its Jewish roots as the use of icons shifted from adornment to adoration.
It is interesting to note that by 787 C.E. icons were quite prolific within the church, and the 7th Council of Nicea was called to address specifically this issue. (It would seem that Roman culture won out after all). The Council of Nicea was called at the height of the iconoclast movement to eradicate images within the church. The use of icons probably arose as a result of the Manichaeism heresy, which denied the "humanity" of Christ. The Manichaens felt the physical body was corrupt, therefore Jesus could not have existed in that form, but only as a spirit "representing" the human form. It is believed that the use of icons depicting an all too human Jesus was an attempt to counteract the heresy. However, image making got out of control, and there was always the tendency within some to worship the image rather than what the image depicted (the risen Christ). The iconoclasts were "overruled" at the Council of Nicea since image making helped to educate the followers that Jesus was indeed human, and suffered as a human.24
Overtime, the use of images would play a more pedestrian role. During the so-called Dark and Middle Ages, many citizens could not read, and books were highly scarce. The great cathedrals were often constructed as a way of educating the "ignorant masses" through images, much like a storybook. Thus, the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches became replete with images depicting the life of Jesus and the saints. For example, the "Stations of the Cross", still employed in all Catholic churches, were used to teach peasants the Passion story, and were often depicted using life-like sculpture and art.
The rise of images within the Christian ("Catholic") church did not go seriously challenged again until the Reformation. The chief complaint of reformers such as John Calvin and Huldrych Zwingli was not that art was intrinsically bad, but that it detracted from the most important part of Christian belief; the Holy Scriptures. An attempt was therefore made to remove all unnecessary adornments that had been previously employed by the Catholic Church so that the new Protestants could focus solely on the essentials of Christian belief.25
The influence of the great Reformation, with its emphasis on sola scriptura, has had a tremendous impact on Protestant churches to this date, (especially those influenced by the Reformed Church against those influenced by Martin Luther). These prohibitions were not simply directed at art, but to other activities such as music, dance, movement, and similar activities. The Puritan movement in Europe was highly dedicated to maintaining and propagating the ideals of the Reformation, and was subsequently highly influential in this country.
For our concerns here, the influence to Ethical Culture has come not only from its de facto exposure to Puritan idealism in America, but from the Unitarian movement as well (most notably through Ralph Waldo Emerson). The Unitarian movement itself evolved from the Puritan churches in America and was heavily influenced with the concept of sola scriptura promoted by Calvin and Zwingli.26 Many of the early unitarians (little "u" for emphasis), employing the rule of sola scriptura, began to challenge the notion of the trinity, which they regarded as unscriptural. Unitarian ministers, such as Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau, pushed the envelope even further. They challenged many of the concepts that had come down through history regarding Christianity, in an attempt to reduce the teachings of the Judeo-Christian tradition to its most pure form. Emerson was also a transcendentalists, and his writings are saturated with a nature-centered theory of epistemology.
Many of these early reformers were active in an organization called "The Free Religious Association." Founded in 1867 by Francis Abbot and O.B. Frothingham it included an amazing array of religious liberals including Unitarians, Universalists, progressive Quakers (such as Lucretia Mott), Jewish Reformers (such as Samuel Wise), and many transcendentalists.27 Emerson himself was the champion voice for the group.
"Under Emerson's inspiration, the Free Religious Association....had already proclaimed a creedless, open faith expressive of the inclusive spirit and human principles.."28 Emerson also described to this group what his vision of the future church should be like.
"The noblest literature of the world will be its Bible, love and labor its holy sacraments. Truth its Supreme Being - and instead of worshipping one savior, it will gladly build an alter in the heart for every one who has suffered for humanity.29"
In addition the new church would have "...heaven and earth for its beams and rafters; science for symbol and illustration; it will fast gather beauty, music, picture, poetry."30
Sitting in the audience with this amazing group of ministers was Felix Adler, who would not only be influenced by this group, but who would serve as its president for 10 years, even after he had founded the Ethical Culture Movement. Emerson's ideal church no doubt heavily influenced Adler's vision for the Ethical Society. The influence to remove all unnecessary religious trappings and accouterments, to reduce the "truths" of religion to their purest form stemming from Calvin and Zwingli, through the Unitarians and Emerson, did certainly have an impact on the formation of the Ethical Culture tradition.
PSYCHOLOGICAL SPECULATION
PERSONALITY STYLE OF THE MOVEMENT - An interesting tool to understanding Ethical Culture's Platform style has occurred with the wide-spread use of the Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator (MBTI) within the Ethical Movement. Large scale testing of many members has revealed a very interesting pattern. Nearly all Ethical Culturists fall on the "N" side of the "S/N" continuum. Roughly speaking, the S/N scale supposedly tests how an individual "take in information," with the "S" types preferring the "immediate, real, practical experience of life," and the "N" types preferring the possibilities, relationships and meaning of experiences."31 In short, "S" types supposedly prefer to focus on "what is real and actual," while "N" types "focus on the 'big picture' possibilities."32
What is interesting about this indicator is that only 25% of American's according to MBTI research, fall on the "N" side of the scale, yet the whopping majority of Ethical Culturists do (in fact all of its current active Leaders, all of the board members of the American Ethical Union, and in my experience, most members of Societies).
In an interesting book called "Four Spiritualities: Expressions of Self, Expressions of Spirit," the author, Peter Tufts Richardson contrasts the spiritual "predilections" of four personality types (S and N, along with the "T/F" continuum). These four types he called NT, NF, ST, and SF. His writing suggests that although most individuals merely adapt to the religion of their parents, many adults who do choose a new religion (or congregation), do so to match more the tastes of their personality style than to a reasoned choice for the dictates of the new faith. Thus, a SF might gravitate towards a religion with these kinds of activities: (condensed from Richardson).33 "Hands on devotional practice. Space rich in stimulation. Remove shoes. Sit or kneel for rituals. No one gives instruction for the steps are repeated and known each time. Candles and fruit offering. Impressive murals. Flower offerings. Stories of the triumphs of good over evil. Major feast days and holidays."
Conversely, an NT might choose a different setting:
"Least adorned setting for spiritual practice; a Zen garden, a quiet grove, a white room with clear paned windows, a simple chapel. The leader welcomes you, perhaps gives a commentary on the reading of the day. Discussion of a theme. Profound truth or principle presented. Clarity. There is an educational component."
What is so disturbing about his analysis, is how accurately it matches the common Ethical Culture Platform, which is predominated by "N" types. I have included two handouts at the end of this paper, which further detail the four spiritual types and the kinds of services and ideas they would be attracted to. This begs the question. Is it the philosophy of the Ethical Culture Movement which led to the conscious creation of its Platform style, or did the philosophy of the Movement attract a predominance of "N" types, who unconsciously dictated the style of Platform to meet their own tastes? While this may seem like a subtle distinction, we could theorize that subtle changes to the Platform program which includes activities pleasing to a larger number of Americans (since the majority of them are "S" types) would make the "N" types feel more uncomfortable. (Evidence for this theory might be the tremendous distasteful reaction lighting a candle has for many Ethical Culturists). Conversely, is the attempt by many Ethical Culturists to keep the Platform style in its present form more supported by philosophical theory, as I have outlined above, or by unconscious personality choice? (An interesting challenge).
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
THE LIMITS OF SPACE - Another possible influence on our aesthetics may have to do with architectural limitations (and impositions). More than a few of our Societies reside in buildings which primarily were not built for congregations, such as Brooklyn, Bergen, Northern Westchester, Baltimore, Chicago, Essex, Queens, and Suffolk. The layout of the facility may have some impact on the "flow" of the Platform and the use of art. Even buildings created for Ethical congregations may have some design impositions. Take for example St. Louis' beautiful structure. The impressive use of exposed wood and clean flowing lines that lead one "upward" would be hampered by the imposition of art forms which would draw the eye horizontally. Perhaps for this reason, St. Louis' main hall is completely devoid of any art, save for small flower bearing sconces that are located on either side of the speaker. (Given her background in design, it is surely not by chance that the St. Louis flower arranger also chooses floral arrays which complement the rooms vertical direction).
A more exacting influence from our architecture might come from the near universal use of sociofugal seating (sitting in symmetrical rows with the speaker up front)34. Psychologist Robert Sommer's research has shown that sociofugal sitting has been employed by architects whenever the designers want as little audience interaction as possible. Unlike a circle or "theater-in-the-round" format, sociofugal sitting precludes the audience interaction with one another. We merely face forward staring at the back of the head of the person sitting in front of us, and limiting our interaction to only the persons on our left and right. This is the style preferred by schools and auditoriums where the focus is on what is going on ahead (the teacher or performer), and which avoids distractions from others around us.35
Research into this style of seating has revealed some interesting consequences. When similar material was presented to similar audiences, the sociofugal audience asked few questions and interacted the least with the speaker. The circular seated audience, however, was highly dynamic, interacted more with both the teacher and the other students, and was more of a challenge to the instructor. Additional research confirmed this "audience behavior." Groups of research subjects were led into two rooms. One an auditorium, and the other, a room with circular seating. The researchers then monitored the groups behavior. Invariably, the auditorium group began to display human "audience behavior." Participants spoke in hushed tones, there was little moving around, and few of the participants engaged others around them in conversation (even thought this was not prohibited). The circle group displayed far greater human interaction, and some participants no longer even felt inclined to remain in their chairs.
This research would suggest that even a factor as simple as "seating" may unconsciously influence our Platform styles. Am I right in suggesting that those Societies which employ less symmetrical seating are also more interactive and willing to experiment with Platform styles?
OBSTACLES TO CHANGE
Writing this paper serves several purposes. I am an Ethical Culturists, and am deeply involved with my religion which I thoroughly love. The problem is, our Movement has not statistically grown in Members for 20 years. Ethical Culture although considered a "world religion" is in a precarious place. Currently, there are only about 3000 active members in the United States, and a few scattered abroad. While I realize we tire of this discussion, our great Humanist hope for a much larger and more influential Movement in the United States is facing a crisis. The world has changed, and most Americans are seemingly not interested in a nontheistic, non-creedle religion with an emphasis on ethical living and a passion to affirm human worth. Yet, the so-called "seeker" churches are growing by leaps and bounds. Beyond the rhetoric, I wonder why this is so?
My questions for my fellow Leaders remain; Could the manner with which Ethical Culture is presented account for our stability in numbers? If the Myers-Briggs researchers are correct and if Richardson's analysis of the religious tastes of these Americans is accurate, most Americans prefer a religion which is less abstract and more experiential (emotive) than Ethical Culture, and a service which is more interactive. (Hence the rapid growth of spiritualism and "Seeker Churches"). The second question is; Do we care? Is Ethical Culture really something different, a more "narrow path," and is it the philosophy which keeps our numbers small? Yet, having said this, are we being honest to our ideals?
Our message is that the particularistic limitations of traditionalist ethical systems should be challenged by a belief which is more universalistic. This begs the question whether Ethical Culture is indeed universalistic? My analysis of our philosophy is that it truly is, but we do have some particularistic limitations. These limitations seemingly have more to do with aesthetics than metaphysics.
Changing our Platform will be a challenge to Ethical Culture due to all of the variables which I have listed above, as it will take a concerted effort on our part to reinterpret Ethical philosophy for a different audience. Simply making changes will not work, however, if we don't create a philosophical grounding to substantiate such changes. They will merely be seen as artificial and are destined to fail.
I want to thank Don Johnson for rekindling my interest in Paul Tillich and his understanding of symbolization. Tillich in his book "Dynamics of Faith" makes several good arguments why simply changing a pattern of behavior, such as employing more symbols to accommodate a new audience, will not work. In "Symbols of Faith", Tillich gives an in-depth description of symbols and their importance to Humanity, especially to their merit as being part of the extensive tradition and history of a people. He then lays out several conditions to which symbols must conform. For succinctness, I have chosen three important and related conditions. First, "symbols point to something beyond themselves". If we are to introduce new symbolic behaviors or actions at the Ethical Society, we must be sure that they clearly represent our Ethical ideals. The challenge to Ethical Culture would be to focus on the "here and now," and to create symbols (art, through movement, activities, etc.) which are clearly representative of the affirmation of human worth.
Second, "symbols cannot be produced intentionally." Tillich argues that they must emerge from the "unconsciousness of the group in which they appear." Ethical Culture's history is relatively short compared to other religions and much of religious symbolism is not only meaningless to us, but infringes on much of what Ethical Culture believes in as mentioned above. Ethical Culture does have an abundant history of human service and education, and these areas might be "mined" to provide material which is symbolically meaningful to our "collective unconscious."
Third, "symbols cannot be invented." To be genuine, a symbol cannot be so abstract that it is meaningless to those who employ it. Rather, it must have a meaning which is clear to all who use it. Lighting a candle speaks volumes to some. But the act of lighting a candle also carries the psychological baggage of two thousand years of religious struggle. A new act, even one which we deem to now be "symbolic" is meaningless if it has no history, no life. Ethical Culture's challenge is that for the past 120 years it has consciously attempted to avoid all religious symbols and actions. To introduce symbolic gestures now may not only be resisted, but prove to be a meaningless activity.
POSSIBILITIES
Despite the obstacles to a richer Ethical Culture Platform environment, there are some possibilities which we might explore, and some facts to consider. Ethical Culturists do hold reason as one of its shining ideals. Although many Ethical Culturists first speak of their negative "gut response" to symbolic acts and religious actions, many are surprisingly willing to discuss their aversion in detail using reasoned analysis. Blind adherence to dogmatic conditions is luckily not endorsed within the Ethical Culture Movement. Therefore, many Ethical Culturists are willing to experiment or to at least remain "open minded" about change. It is consistent with our principle beliefs.
Recently, a Summer School for Lay Leaders was started which was developed to train Members to more effectively participate in the life of our congregations. As part of the week-long activities, each night various teams of Ethical Culturist create mini Platforms for the rest of the "campers" to participate in. The variety and texture of these alternative Platform styles has been amazing and exciting to behold. New styles have included such "alien" activities as dance, responsorial reading, movement, art (such as on the spot sculpture), song, embracing, and many other such activities. What was surprising was not only the variety of activities, but the fact that most of the participants thoroughly enjoyed the new styles. This shows that, outside of the confines of the traditional Society at least, Ethical Culturist are capable of a much richer and less austere service. The problem most Lay Leaders encountered when returning to their Societies is that given the length of the Platform address, little time remains for other experimental actions (and there may be real limitations, such as architectural as mentioned above). But do we lesson "the altar" of the Society?
In addition, many Ethical Culturists are aware that our subjective tastes are culturally influenced, especially by our Jewish and Christian Reform roots. The South Place Ethical Society in London was a much different experience. Lacking a large Jewish population, and less influenced by the Calvinist influences which predominate Protestantism here in America, South Place experimented freely with many varied forms which would shock most Ethical Culturists in the States. Stanton Coit, the former Anglican minister turned Ethical Culture Leader employed a Platform style rich in symbolism. The lecturer wore a robe, music and responsorial reading were part of the liturgy, and services where rich with rituals and symbols.36
As the Ethical Culture Movement is introduced into new areas of the United States, away from the mostly urban, mostly western European, and (dare I say) intellectual environment which it currently finds itself, new patterns might develop which are more familiar to a larger group of Americans.
Posted by on February 21, 2001 | TrackBack