Essay/Term paper: Jonathan's swift's real argument

Essay, term paper, research paper:  World Literature

Jonathan's 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.