Related:
The myths the secular order needs you to keep believing
Every civilization teaches its children a story about how it got here. Ours is no exception. The American curriculum tells a narrative of liberation: humanity, long imprisoned in superstition and ecclesiastical violence, was set free by reason, science, and the neutral state. Religion receded. Progress advanced. Here we are.
Most of this story is wrong in the small ways that historians have been quietly correcting for decades. But the corrections don't penetrate the curriculum, and the reason is structural. Some of the errors are load-bearing. Remove them and the building has to argue for itself again rather than appearing as the natural endpoint of human development. The point of this essay is to walk through the load-bearing ones — the myths that, if removed, force the secular liberal order to defend itself as a contingent settlement rather than rest on its claim to be the cessation of distortion.
This is not a religious tract. The historiography here is uncontroversial among working specialists across confessional lines. The provocation isn't the facts. It's what the facts mean once you see them assembled.
I. The Wars of Religion
The story: between Luther's 95 Theses in 1517 and the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, Europe tore itself apart over doctrine. Catholics killed Protestants. Protestants killed Catholics. Both killed everyone else. The carnage proved that mixing faith and politics produces atrocity, and the modern secular state emerged as the rational peacemaker — the neutral container that would let private religious conviction coexist by removing it from public power.
This is the legitimating myth of liberal political order itself. It is why the state gets to be the arbiter of plural goods and why religion gets relegated to private conscience. It is the founding why behind everything from the Establishment Clause to contemporary debates about religious schools and pharmacist conscience claims.
The historical problem is that the wars were not what the story says they were.
Catholic France, under Cardinal Richelieu, fought on the Protestant side of the Thirty Years' War against Catholic Habsburg Spain and Austria. France subsidized Lutheran Sweden. The Most Christian King of France allied with the Ottoman Sultan against fellow Catholics. Catholic Venice fought Catholic Spain. Lutheran Saxony fought Lutheran Sweden at Nördlingen. The supposedly confessional bloodbath was, on inspection, fought across confessional lines as often as along them, in patterns that track state interests precisely and confessional loyalties poorly.
William Cavanaugh's The Myth of Religious Violence (2009) walks through the cases and shows what was actually happening: these were state-formation wars, the violent consolidation of sovereign authority over fragmented medieval jurisdictions. The emerging absolutist state was the winner of these wars, not the peacemaker that arrived to stop them. And the modern category of "religion" as a discrete, privatizable, essentially-belief-rather-than-practice sphere — that category was invented by the settlement, not discovered by it. Before roughly 1600, "religion" did not name what it names now. It was closer to "virtue" or "piety" — a habit of life inseparable from political and economic existence. Carving it off as a separable interior was a political achievement of the new state, not a description of what religion always was.
Brad Gregory's The Unintended Reformation (2012) traces the consequences forward. The settlement didn't pacify religious passion; it transferred sacrality to the nation-state, which then proceeded to kill in numbers the religious wars never approached.
Why this is load-bearing: if the secular state is not the neutral end of religious violence but a rival sacrality that won a war and then narrated its victory as peace, then liberal pluralism's foundational claim — that the state stands above the contesting goods of its citizens as a neutral umpire — collapses. The state becomes a particular tradition with a particular theology, asking for the same scrutiny it asks of others.
II. The Inquisition
Popular memory: a continent-wide regime of torture and executions, claiming millions of victims, expressing the natural cruelty of religious authority unconstrained by reason.
Actual numbers: the Spanish Inquisition, the largest and longest-running of the inquisitions, operated from 1478 to 1834 — three and a half centuries. Total executions across that span are now estimated by working historians at somewhere between three thousand and five thousand. Henry Kamen's The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision (1997, revised 2014) is the standard work; Edward Peters' Inquisition (1988) covers the broader European institution. The Roman Inquisition executed perhaps a hundred people across its full run. The Portuguese, similar order of magnitude.
For comparison: the French Revolutionary Terror, in a single year (1793–94), executed roughly seventeen thousand by guillotine alone, with another twenty-five thousand killed in associated suppressions. The single battle of Verdun in 1916 killed roughly three hundred thousand. The twentieth century's secular ideological projects — Soviet, Maoist, Khmer Rouge — killed in the nine-figure range.
It also matters how the Inquisition operated. Inquisitorial courts had procedural protections that secular courts of the same era lacked. Defendants got counsel. Torture was constrained by canonical rules and used less frequently than in contemporary civil courts. Confessions extracted under torture had to be repeated outside the torture chamber to count. The Inquisition kept meticulous records, which is precisely how we can count the executions — a paper trail secular courts of the era did not produce. Many people accused of capital crimes by neighbors actively sought transfer to inquisitorial jurisdiction because the chances of survival were better.
The inflated numbers — six million, nine million, the figures floating through popular books and documentaries — trace back to nineteenth-century anti-Catholic polemics, especially the Spanish-American liberal tradition and Protestant historians like Henry Charles Lea. They were not historiography. They were ammunition.
Why this is load-bearing: the inflated number does enormous comparative work. It establishes "religion kills" as the empirical baseline against which secular modernity measures its own progress. Correct the number by three orders of magnitude and the comparison runs the other way. The twentieth century, the most thoroughly secular century in human history, is also the most murderous. This is a fact the secularization narrative has no comfortable place to put.
III. The Witch Trials
Popular framing: a medieval Catholic horror, the Church burning women for heresy across the long age of superstition, ended at last by the Enlightenment.
The actual chronology: the great age of witch-hunting was 1560 to 1630. That is early modern, not medieval. It coincides almost exactly with the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, the Wars of Religion, and the rise of the sovereign state. It peaks in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries — the same period in which Galileo is doing his work, the same decades that gave us Bacon and Descartes.
The geography: heaviest in the German-speaking lands, especially the Holy Roman Empire's patchwork of small Lutheran and Calvinist territories. Significant in Scotland (Calvinist), Switzerland (mixed), and the Protestant parts of France. The Spanish Inquisition, on receiving witchcraft accusations, conducted investigations and concluded that most accused witches were victims of mass hysteria; Inquisitor Alonso de Salazar Frías' 1610 report on the Basque trials (the Informes) is one of the great documents of skeptical investigation in European history. The Roman Inquisition was similarly skeptical. Italy — heart of "Catholic superstition" in the popular imagination — had relatively few executions.
The medieval Church's official position, going back to the Canon Episcopi of around 906 (later included in Gratian's Decretum), was that belief in witches' night-flights was a pagan delusion that Christians should not credit. To believe in such things was itself a kind of heresy. This was the canonical position for roughly six centuries.
What changed was the rise of state courts taking over jurisdiction from ecclesiastical ones, the demonological treatises of the late medieval and early modern period (the Malleus Maleficarum, 1487, was authored by an inquisitor whose work was repudiated by his own order's theological faculty at Cologne), and the political-religious anxieties of the Reformation period. The witch-hunts accelerated as secular authorities, not Church courts, took the lead.
Brian Levack's The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe (4th ed., 2015) is the standard synthesis. Stuart Clark's Thinking with Demons (1997) covers the intellectual history. Robin Briggs' Witches and Neighbours (1996) covers the social mechanics.
Why this is load-bearing: the witch-hunts are the central image of why the medieval sacral order had to be replaced. Move them out of the medieval period and into the early modern, attribute them to Protestant and state-court venues rather than the Catholic ecclesiastical tradition, and notice that the rationalizing, modernizing, state-building movement is exactly what produced the burnings — the vector inverts. The witch-hunts are not a relic of an obscurantist past. They are an early product of modernity itself.
IV. The Crusades
The popular framing: peaceful Islamic civilization minding its business, set upon by Christian European aggressors in a four-century campaign of religiously motivated violence, the original sin of Christendom against the Muslim world.
The chronology forbids this. Islam emerges in the 620s. Within a century, Islamic armies have conquered, in order: Syria (636), Palestine (637), Egypt (641), all of formerly Christian North Africa (by 698), Visigothic Spain (711), and reached central France before being turned back at Tours (732). They take Sicily in the ninth century, raid Rome in 846, sack the basilicas of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, sit on the doorstep of Constantinople for centuries.
By the time Pope Urban II preaches the First Crusade at Clermont in 1095, Islamic powers have held two-thirds of formerly Christian territory for more than four hundred years. The immediate trigger is a request for help from the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos, whose empire is hemorrhaging Anatolia to the Seljuk Turks after the disaster of Manzikert (1071). The Crusades, whatever else they were, were not unprovoked. They were a delayed and ultimately failed counterattack in a war that began four centuries earlier and, viewed at the level of Eurasian geopolitics, did not end until the second siege of Vienna in 1683.
This does not exonerate specific atrocities. The First Crusade's sack of Jerusalem in 1099 was a massacre. The Fourth Crusade's sack of Constantinople in 1204 was an atrocity against fellow Christians and crippled Byzantium for the rest of its life. The Albigensian Crusade was a domestic horror. The history is morally compromised in many particulars, and serious Crusade historians do not whitewash any of it.
But the framing of European Christianity as the historical aggressor against a peaceful Islamic world is geographically and chronologically backwards. Rodney Stark's God's Battalions (2009) makes the polemical case. Thomas Madden's The New Concise History of the Crusades (2nd ed., 2005) and Christopher Tyerman's God's War (2006) are the standard scholarly treatments. Jonathan Riley-Smith spent his career on this and produced a corpus that defines the modern field.
Why this is load-bearing: the Crusade myth underwrites the contemporary narrative of Christianity as uniquely violent and the West as historically guilty in ways that conveniently exempt the secular successor regime from the same scrutiny. It supplies the moral justification for treating Western tradition as something to be apologized for rather than inherited. Correct the chronology and Christianity becomes one combatant among others in a long Eurasian struggle, and Western guilt becomes a more ordinary historical phenomenon than the founding sin the curriculum has made it.
V. The Galileo Affair
Already addressed, but worth restating in its load-bearing role. The popular story: Galileo proved the Earth moves, the Church refused to look through the telescope, condemned him as a heretic, tortured him, locked him in a dungeon. Reason against superstition, foundation myth of why religious authority must be removed from intellectual life.
The actual story: Copernicus, a Catholic cleric, published De revolutionibus in 1543 with a dedication to Pope Paul III, who accepted it. The book circulated freely for seventy years. Jesuit astronomers at the Roman College — among the best observational astronomers in Europe — taught it. The 1582 Gregorian calendar reform used Copernican calculations.
Galileo's own evidence in 1616 was actually weak. Stellar parallax was not observed (it would not be until Bessel in 1838); his theory of tides as proof of Earth's motion was wrong; Tycho Brahe's geo-heliocentric model fit the data better at the time. Cardinal Bellarmine's position — show us a proof and we will reinterpret Scripture — was epistemically reasonable given the state of evidence in 1616.
The 1633 trial was triggered by a hermeneutical and political dispute, not an evidentiary one. Galileo, a layman, had published a Letter to Castelli telling theologians how to read Joshua's "sun stand still" passage. This was, in the post-Tridentine Church still bleeding from the Protestant wound over lay scriptural interpretation, the worst possible move. He then put Pope Urban VIII's own argument about divine omnipotence into the mouth of Simplicio — "the simpleton" — in the Dialogue. Urban had been Galileo's friend and patron and had written poetry praising him. The trial was as much betrayed-friendship and post-Reformation jurisdictional anxiety as anything cosmological.
He was not tortured. He was not imprisoned in a dungeon. He lived under house arrest in a villa in Arcetri, kept writing, saw his daughter, hosted visitors, drew a Church pension, and produced his best book, the Two New Sciences, while "imprisoned." The sentence was unjust; it was not the gothic Inquisition of cartoon imagination.
No one was ever burned, executed, or harmed for Copernicanism. Giordano Bruno, frequently confused with Galileo in popular accounts, was executed in 1600 for explicitly theological heresies — denying the Trinity, Christ's divinity, transubstantiation, the perpetual virginity of Mary — not for cosmology. The conflation is propaganda.
Maurice Finocchiaro's Retrying Galileo (2005) and The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History (1989) are the documentary corpus. David C. Lindberg and Ronald Numbers, Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion (2009) is the cross-confessional demolition of the warfare thesis. Owen Gingerich's The Book Nobody Read (2004) traces the actual reception history of Copernicus.
Why this is load-bearing: the Galileo myth is the founding martyrology of secular legitimacy. It supplies the just-so story explaining why religion had to be displaced from public reason. Without it, the secularization narrative loses its martyr, and the question of why religious authority got demoted becomes genuinely open again rather than a settled matter of moral progress.
VI. The Secularization Thesis
Taught implicitly in every social-studies sequence: as societies modernize — industrialize, urbanize, educate — religion recedes. This is what happens. It is the natural shape of human development.
It does not happen. The world in 2026 is more religious than it was in 1970, not less. Pentecostalism alone has gone from a few million adherents in 1900 to over six hundred million today. Sub-Saharan Africa, the most rapidly modernizing region on earth, is also the most rapidly Christianizing. China is in the middle of one of the largest religious revivals in human history despite official suppression. The global Muslim population is growing fast. The secular West — Western Europe, parts of North America, Australia, New Zealand, the educated coastal Anglophone world — is the global outlier, not the leading edge of an inevitable trend.
The thesis also has a problem at home. Religious decline in the West tracks state policy, ethnic settlement patterns, and elite cultural prestige far more closely than it tracks "modernization" abstractly considered. The American case is the standing embarrassment of the original sociological thesis: the most modern country on earth has remained anomalously religious for the entire period during which the thesis predicted it should have secularized. The thesis kept getting rescued with epicycles until José Casanova, Peter Berger (who recanted his earlier secularization-thesis position), Charles Taylor, and others dismantled it from within sociology of religion.
Charles Taylor's A Secular Age (2007) is the comprehensive reframing. Taylor's argument is that secularity is not the absence of religion revealed when superstition is cleared away. It is a particular historical settlement with its own metaphysical commitments, particularly the move from the "porous self" — a self open to spiritual forces, integrated into a cosmos charged with meaning — to the "buffered self," a self insulated from such influences, sealed against transcendence, locating meaning entirely within. The buffered self is not what humans really are once liberated. It is a specific late-Latin-Christian achievement, with conditions of possibility that can be historically traced.
Talal Asad's Formations of the Secular (2003) does similar work from an anthropological angle. Casanova's Public Religions in the Modern World (1994) does it sociologically.
Why this is load-bearing: if secularity is a settlement rather than a default, then it has to be argued for on its merits, like any other tradition. It loses its claim to be the neutral ground from which other positions are evaluated. The secular university, the secular state, the secular public square — these stop being the absence of partiality and start being a specific and contestable arrangement.
VII. Religion as Private and Irrational
Downstream of the secularization thesis but doing its own work: the framing in which religious commitment is by nature private, emotional, subjective, and essentially a matter of personal belief, while reason is public, objective, and tradition-neutral. This is the operating frame of public discourse, education policy, journalism, and most academic writing. It is presented as the floor on which everything else stands.
It is not a floor. It is a specific theological and philosophical claim with a traceable genealogy. The privatization of religion as essentially-interior-belief is a Protestant theological move (especially Lockean, especially in A Letter Concerning Toleration, 1689) that got generalized as a public-political settlement, then naturalized as common sense. Medieval and patristic Christianity did not understand itself as essentially-belief; nor does Islam, nor Judaism, nor Hinduism, nor Buddhism, nor any indigenous tradition. The interior-belief reduction is parochial to a particular Protestant moment, exported under the cover of neutrality.
The companion claim — that "secular public reason" is tradition-neutral — falls to Alasdair MacIntyre's Whose Justice? Which Rationality? (1988). MacIntyre's argument, which has not been refuted in nearly forty years of trying, is that there is no tradition-independent vantage. Every standard of rationality is internal to a tradition of inquiry. "Liberal individualism" is not the absence of a tradition; it is a tradition with its own canonical texts, foundational debates, normative commitments, and characteristic blind spots. Demanding that other traditions translate themselves into the vocabulary of liberal public reason is not a procedural requirement. It is a substantive demand that they convert.
John Milbank's Theology and Social Theory (1990, 2nd ed. 2006) goes further: the modern social sciences are crypto-theologies. They do not displace theology with neutral inquiry; they smuggle theological assumptions in unexamined while denying the smuggling. Sociology assumes a particular Durkheimian theology of the social. Economics assumes a particular post-Christian anthropology of self-interest. Political science assumes a particular Hobbesian theology of sovereign violence. The "secular social science" claim is not false-because-religious-and-pretending-not-to-be; it is false because the disciplines do their work by enforcing a particular metaphysics while pretending to have none.
Stanley Hauerwas, William Cavanaugh, and the broader Radical Orthodoxy movement have pursued this line. From outside theology, Talal Asad and the genealogical-anthropology tradition reach similar conclusions through different methods.
Why this is load-bearing: the entire architecture of liberal pluralism depends on the existence of a neutral public square. Remove the neutrality claim and you do not have a procedural arrangement for accommodating diverse goods. You have rival traditions in the agora, contesting on the merits, with one of them — the liberal one — having claimed for three centuries that it was not a contestant but a referee. The referee turns out to have been playing the whole time.
VIII. The "Dark Ages"
The image: a thousand years of European stagnation between the fall of Rome (476) and the Renaissance (conventionally fourteenth-fifteenth century), during which the Church suppressed inquiry, knowledge atrophied, and superstition reigned. Civilization had to be recovered from Greek and Roman sources via Islamic intermediaries to escape this long night.
What was actually happening in the so-called Dark Ages and High Middle Ages:
The university is invented. Bologna (1088), Paris (c. 1150), Oxford (c. 1167), Cambridge (1209), Salamanca (1218). These are not minor institutions; they are the direct ancestors of every research university in the world today, and they were founded as ecclesiastical bodies, often with explicit papal charters, teaching scholastic theology and Aristotelian philosophy alongside law and medicine.
The hospital is invented as a generalized institution. Pre-Christian antiquity had medical practice but not the xenodocheion / hospitium tradition of caring for the sick stranger as such. The Christian hospital network expanded from late antiquity through the medieval period and is the institutional ancestor of the modern hospital.
Polyphony is invented. Western harmonic music, the development that distinguishes the Western musical tradition from every other tradition on earth, develops in monastic and cathedral schools from the ninth through the twelfth centuries. Hildegard of Bingen, Pérotin, the Notre-Dame School, the Ars Nova — the entire substrate of Western music is medieval and ecclesiastical.
The agricultural revolution that made the High Medieval population boom possible — the heavy plow, the three-field system, the horse collar, water and wind power — is a medieval achievement. Lynn White Jr.'s Medieval Technology and Social Change (1962) is dated but the framework holds. Population in Europe roughly doubled between 1000 and 1300. That does not happen during a stagnation.
Scholastic logic, the direct ancestor of analytic philosophy, is a medieval invention. Anyone who has worked through Aquinas, Scotus, or Ockham knows that "the Dark Ages didn't think rigorously" is a sentence written by people who haven't read them. Modal logic, the analysis of intention, the metaphysics of universals, the theory of supposition — this is some of the most rigorous philosophical work ever done, and it was done by medieval Christians.
The recovery of Aristotle in the West runs from roughly 1140 to 1280 and is largely a Christian project, with Islamic and Jewish help — Averroes, Maimonides — that the curriculum sometimes acknowledges. What it less often acknowledges is that the Christian scholastics did not just receive Aristotle; they transformed him in ways that made modern science possible. Pierre Duhem's Le Système du Monde (1913–1959, ten volumes) traces this; more recently, Edward Grant's The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages (1996) makes the case compactly.
The Carolingian and twelfth-century Renaissances were real renaissances. Charlemagne's court at Aachen, Alcuin's educational program, the Cluniac and Cistercian reforms, the cathedral school of Chartres, the rise of the friars, the Gothic cathedral as engineering and aesthetic achievement — this is not stagnation. It is one of the most generative civilizational moments in human history.
Régine Pernoud's Those Terrible Middle Ages (1977) is the popular corrective. Jacques Le Goff, Étienne Gilson, R. W. Southern, Christopher Dawson, and Jean Gimpel are the deeper bench. Tom Holland's Dominion (2019), from a non-confessional position, traces how much of contemporary moral intuition is medieval-Christian inheritance running on emptied tanks.
Why this is load-bearing: if the medieval Church was civilizationally generative rather than obscurantist, then the Renaissance and Enlightenment self-narrative as liberation from something becomes a story of ungrateful heirs rather than emancipated prisoners. The whole "humanity finally grew up" frame depends on there being a long childhood to grow out of. There wasn't. There was a different civilization, with its own genius, that the inheritors mischaracterized in order to claim originality.
IX. The Autonomous Individual
The deepest one. The frame on which the others rest. The buffered, self-choosing, identity-discovering individual is presented in the curriculum as what humans really are once superstition is cleared away — the natural human, finally visible. Every developmental theory, every psychology unit, every guidance counselor's vocabulary, the entire telos of "self-actualization" — this is the unmarked default.
It is not what humans really are. It is a specific, recent, local anthropology with a traceable history. The buffered self emerges in late-Latin-Christian piety (Taylor again), gets philosophical articulation in Descartes and Locke, gets political form in eighteenth-century rights theory, gets Romantic intensification in expressivism (Herder, Rousseau, the German Romantics), and gets its current therapeutic shape in the twentieth century via Maslow, Rogers, the human potential movement, and the post-1960s expressive-individualist mainstream. Robert Bellah's Habits of the Heart (1985) is the standard sociological account; Philip Rieff's The Triumph of the Therapeutic (1966) is the prophetic one; Christopher Lasch's The Culture of Narcissism (1979) extends it; Carl Trueman's The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self (2020) traces the genealogy in detail.
What was the alternative anthropology, which is to say, what almost every other human culture in history has assumed? That the human being is constitutively formed — by language, lineage, liturgy, mimesis, tradition, place, vocation, the goods one is given to pursue and the people one is given to love. The self is not a kernel waiting to be liberated from the husk of inherited constraint. The self is the constraint, and personhood is what those formative bonds make possible. Aristotle's zoon politikon, Augustine's loves-as-self, Aquinas's habits-as-virtues, Confucius's ren worked out through li, the Hebrew Bible's covenantal self, the Buddhist anatta through which dependent origination becomes visible — these are not the same anthropology, but they share the recognition that the autonomous individual of liberal modernity is a strange and recent invention.
René Girard's mimetic theory is the sharpest contemporary statement of this from a non-confessional starting point. The desires we take to be ours, our most intimate preferences, are mimetically borrowed; we want what we want because models around us want it. The "authentic self" is a mimetic effect that has forgotten its sources. Reading Girard makes the curriculum's central anthropological claim — be yourself, find your truth, follow your desire — visibly incoherent. The self is constituted by the desires it borrows. Which models you imitate is the only real question, and that question gets answered by formation, not by introspection.
Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue (1981) makes the case that without a tradition that names the goods a human life is for, there is no rational moral discourse, only the manipulation of preferences. Charles Taylor's Sources of the Self (1989) is the comprehensive intellectual history. Stanley Hauerwas's The Peaceable Kingdom (1983) and the broader virtue-ethics revival extend it. From a Jewish angle, Jonathan Sacks's Morality (2020). From an Eastern Orthodox angle, the entire patristic tradition on theosis. From a contemplative angle, Eckhart's Gelassenheit — the releasement of the will that is, paradoxically, the only condition under which a self genuinely emerges.
Why this is the deepest load-bearing wall: every other myth on this list is preserved because it serves the autonomous individual. The Wars of Religion myth gives the autonomous individual a state to live inside. The Inquisition numbers give him a horror to feel emancipated from. The witch trials give him a past to congratulate himself for escaping. The Crusades give him a guilt to launder. The Galileo myth gives him a martyr who resembles him. The secularization thesis gives him a future to feel inevitable in. The Dark Ages give him a long night to be the dawn after. Pull this wall and the curriculum's entire purpose — produce self-choosing individuals freed from inherited constraint — has to defend itself as a substantive anthropology rather than the natural shape of mature humanity.
It is a substantive anthropology. It is not the natural shape of mature humanity. It is one tradition's bet about what a human is, and it is currently losing the bet — measurably, by the metrics it claimed for itself. Loneliness, suicide, addiction, anxiety, the collapse of the institutions that make a flourishing life possible. The autonomous individual is sick. The curriculum is still teaching the disease as the cure.
What Comes After
The corrections in this essay are not religious propaganda. They are the working consensus of historians who specialize in these periods and have spent careers undoing nineteenth-century polemics that survived in textbooks long after they died in monographs. The point is not to swap one tribal narrative for another. The point is that the secular liberal order has been narrating itself as the cessation of distortion, and that narration depends on specific historical claims that are false, and the falsehoods are not random — they all do the same kind of work.
Once you see the pattern, you cannot unsee it. The order tells a story about its own legitimacy that it cannot afford to have examined. When the examinations come — and they have been coming for a century from working historians, and for forty years from philosophers like MacIntyre and Taylor, and for two decades from theologians like Cavanaugh and Milbank — the order does not engage them. It ignores them. The corrections do not penetrate the curriculum because they cannot be allowed to.
That is what makes this work liberating, and not merely contrarian. The student educated into the standard story has not been given the truth and asked to evaluate it. They have been given a load-bearing fiction and told it is the floor. Removing the fiction does not require them to convert to anything. It requires them only to stand somewhere that is not pretending to be nowhere.
After that, they can argue — as everyone always has — about what the goods actually are, what kind of life is worth living, what we owe one another, what this place we call a civilization is for. Those are the questions a curriculum exists to open. The current one closes them by pretending they have already been answered.
They have not been answered. They are wide open. The first step toward seeing that is noticing the walls.
conversation
Comments
Sign in to join the conversation.
No comments yet. Start the thread.