Internal War: On Dickinson's "To fight aloud, is very brave"

To fight aloud, is very brave --
But gallanter, I know
Who charge within the bosom
The Cavalry of Woe --

Who win, and nations do not see --
Who fall -- and none observe --
Whose dying eyes, no Country
Regards with patriot love --

We trust, in plumed procession
For such, the Angels go --
Rank after Rank, with even feet --
And Uniforms of Snow.

-Emily Dickinson

*********************************

Dickinson begins with a statement: "To fight aloud, is very brave." This is intentionally ambiguous. Who are we fighting aloud with?: you can talk out loud to yourself all the time. Whether alone or with others, fighting aloud takes a bit of courage; anybody could hear us. What might they think?

However, according to Dickinson, it is "gallanter" to "charge within the bosom/The Cavalry of Woe." 'Gallantry' is some kind of 'etiquette,' for lack of a better term, that requires nobility. Hamlet considered "whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer." What is noble is a very, very complicated question. I get the sense that it is looking beyond yourself for the sake of something greater. But how does nobility fit in, then, when the only thing you are dealing with is yourself? Why would it be nobler for Hamlet or Dickinson to keep things in their mind, or in their bosom?

The best I can answer that question is that when you win an internal war, "nations do not see." When you fall, "none observe." Fighting valiantly with yourself is something "no Country/Regards with patriot love." The battle is not for honor, reputation, identity, or anything we get from somebody else. If we are going to actually fight ourselves, it requires deeper compulsion. The good we get out of it comes from something internal -- nobody else even cares if we do it. How many people go to AA or quit smoking because of other people? How many people do it by their own self-will? Who is stronger?

When you are fighting with yourself, you go through the world in a "plumed procession." You create some facade that says "hey, I am happy!" Even the Angels deal with their own internal war: Their "Uniforms of Snow" are beautiful, and their whiteness signifies purity. But snow is cold to the touch, not the eye. Putting on the angelic "Uniform" is a lot different than seeing it. The external tranquility covers some deep, ugly wounds.

If even the Angels "charge the Cavalry of Woe," my only conclusion is this: gallantry comes from the recognition that everyone has problems, and your wars are yours to fight - not somebody else's. Furthermore, it is noble to do this, because you don't burden somebody else for your own sake. Would you ask them to sacrifice their own war, just to help yours? Asking someone else to fight your war is a lot easier, and it also doesn't fix things completely: why else would psychologists get paid so much? a) People are willing to take the easy route and b) People keep coming back -- the conflict is unsettled.

Too often we 'help' by forgetting our own wars, and as a result victory comes to none.

Recent Thoughts on Obama: Individual vs Group

Recently, the Ashbrook Center put out a podcast between Drs. Schramm and Sikkenga talking about Obama's inaugural speech. Sikkenga was very thoughtful, as always, telling about how he concieves Obama's understanding of America.

As a man without a race, Obama essentially diverges with the Founders' belief in individual rights, because you cannot understand human beings outside of groups. He doesn't abandon Founding principles, but just thinks that they don't belong to each citizen by himself, rather they are 'our' rights.

It requires a knowledge of Obama's background to understand why -- the guy was essentially 'raceless' in his early life. Basically, Obama had to decide to be black. This kind of identity doesn't limit who somebody is, but is an essential part of who they are.

Obama is a very smart guy, and it sounds like his idea of America draws from a deep-seated philosophy of man. The new administration is ushering in not only policy change, but a change in American politics as we know it from Washington and Jefferson. Policy change is just sort of the icing on the cake. 'Fixing' the deeper meaning of politics - how to live well - is Obama's biggest task.

But haven't people lived well with absolutely nobody around them? Isn't solitude good? And aren't there deep differences between human beings collectively vs. individually? This may be completely wrong, but it all sounds a little like Rousseau - according to Obama, all of us together have a 'general will.' This isn't self-interest -- what's good for you or for me as individuals -- but what is good for America itself.

I really wish I was a lot better at political philosophy and could explain all of the implications of this, but God, it's sort of scary. Obama makes a lot of assumptions about mankind here -- these are serious considerations. We're not talking about something silly and meaningless like European socialism, but, and I'm stealing from Sikkenga, some 'wisdom' Obama has gotten about 'man' and wants to teach to all of us.

I'd really like to get some conversation going on this -- if any of you actually read here, take ten minutes and listen to Sikkenga's talk. Think about it for a while, and comment about what you think it means for our next 4 years.