Swift's Real Argument
God only knows from whence came Freud's theory of penis envy, but one of his more tame
theories, that of "reverse psychology", may have its roots in the satire of the late
Jonathan Swift. I do not mean to assert that Swift employed or was at all familiar with
that style of persuasion, but his style is certainly comparable. Reverse psychology (as
I chose to define it for this paper) means taking arguments that affirm an issue to such
a degree that they seem absurd, and thus oppose the issue. Swift, in "An Argument
[Against] The Abolishing Of Christianity In England" stands up for Christianity, and
based on the absurdity of his defense, he inadvertently desecrates it. He sets up a
fictitious society in which Christianity is disregarded and disdained, but nominal
Christianity remains. The author writes to defend this nominal Christianity from
abolition. The arguments that the author uses, which are common knowledge in his time, if
applied to Christianity in Swift's time would be quite dangerous allegations. Indeed, the
reasons that Swift gives for the preservation of the fictitious Christianity are exactly
what he sees wrong with the Christianity practiced in his time. By applying Swift's
satirical argument for the preservation of this fictitious religion to that which was
currently practiced, Swift asserts that their Christianity served ulterior motives, both
for the government and for the people.
If we are to prove that the government was using religion for selfish purposes, we must
be sure that it was not serving its intended purpose, the assurance of the moral sanctity
of its policies. This is quite evident in the author's comment that if real Christianity
was revived, it would be, "destroy at one blow all the wit and half the learning of the
kingdom; to break the entire frame and constitution of things[.]" This proves beyond a
shadow of a doubt that Christianity has no influence on the government's current
policies. It even seems as if the government established Church isn't completely rooted
in Christianity, as the author weakly suggests that, "[A]bolishing Christianity may
perhaps bring the church into danger."
The ways that the government actually uses Christianity are completely selfish. One such
purpose is the consolation of allies, "among whom, for we ought to know, it may be the
custom of the country to believe a God." He later goes on to suggest the abolition of
Christianity in peace-time in order to avoid the loss of allies. It also seems as if the
government uses Christianity to pacify the commoners. Although Swift sarcastically
interjects, "Not that I [agree] with those who hold religion to have been the
intervention of politicians to keep the lower part of the world in awe," he also says
that religion is, "[O]f singular use for the common people."
In other instances, the government does not use, but certainly benefits from
Christianity. In several ways Christianity is a buffer from dissension, in that it takes
a blow that might have instead landed on government. Many of the reasons that the
author's opposition has given for abolishing Christianity deals with the settlement of
unrest that comes from religious disputes. One such example they give is that if
Christianity were abolished, there would be no more persecution of "blasphemers". Swift
answers that these people are naturally inclined to rebel against establishments.
Therefore, if the church, their favorite object of rebellion, was taken away, they would
resort to rebelling against the government. This statement suggests that ,"deorum offensa
diis curae" (offenses against the gods are the god's business). If applied to the English
government, it accuses them of only punishing "blasphemers" in the interest of protecting
the government. Another argument that the author counters is that upon the fall of
Christianity, Protestants and other dissenters would be able to again join in communion
with the Catholic church. To this, the author retorts that while this may take away one
reason for dissension, "spirit of opposition" would still remain. Thus, when these
Protestants found themselves unhappily thrust back into the fold, they would simply find
another area in which to dissent, and this time it may be an important area like
government. While reaffirming the government's selfish motives, this accuses the
Protestants of separating from the Catholic church not because of moral differences, but
in order to quench their desire to rebel. Another unity that the author's opposition
predicted would come from Christianity's fall would that of political and religious
parties. Swift answers that these parties used religious differences as an excuse to
argue, and that, if necessary, they would find any number of other matters to argue
about. One very lilliputian example that he gives is that of two Italian factions that
spawned from a dispute over the color of some ribbons. The author asserts that, much like
the Protestants, these parties used religion as an excuse to fulfill their selfish desire
to argue.
Like the politicians, the people also have disposed of Christianity as far as letting
influence their actions. The Christianity then practiced has no relation to real
Christianity, "[S]uch as used in primitive times", "to have an influence upon men's
beliefs and actions." Apparently, even belief in a god, "is more than is required of us"
(Christians). Also, "[B]y an entire change in the methods of education," "the young
gentlemen who are now on the scene seem to have not the least tincture of [virtue, honor,
etc.]." This new generation, while not believing in the morals associated Christianity,
still gain from their existence. While they disobey the laws associated with these
morals, Swift asserts that breaking the rule wouldn't be nearly as fun if it wasn't
considered wrong.
The people also value church for selfish reasons. As Swift explains, church is many
things for many people, none of which include spiritual fulfillment. For social
butterflies, church is the perfect place to hob-knob or show off your latest outfit. For
the businessman, "where more meetings for business?", "where more bargains driven of all
sorts?" Finally, for the insomniac, "where so many conveniences or enticements to sleep?"
These statements apply more directly than any others in the article to the high church of
England.
All of the things that Swift says about this fictional religion would be very strong
words if applied to the Church of England. It might be readily conceived by the innocent
reader that Swift was an enemy of the church in his time. This couldn't be farther from
the truth. Swift was involved in the church and politics all his life, often in the
position of supporting political and religious factions. While this could be used to
counter my thesis that Swift was criticizing the establishment, it can just as easily
support it. Swift obviously didn't hate government or the church, on the contrary, it was
his love of these things that led him to point out the injustices that were scarring
them. Like a mother scolding her child, Swift finds fault in his beloved church, only
that he may edify it.
|