Essay/Term paper: Swift's real argument

Essay, term paper, research paper:  Argumentative Essays

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.