In Defence of the Narrative Paradigm: A Critique Of E.M Forster on Faith In 'What I Believe'

 E.M Forster's seminal essay 'What I Believe' from his 'Two Cheers For Democracy' addresses many things: faith, personal relationships, the use of force, the concept of civilization, democracy and how it is inclusive of public opinion, hero-worship and his ideas about the future. Adding to that are some crucial insights on individualism. Forster, thus by virtue of his essay, is a strong advocate for liberal values and a harsh opponent of all that which he deems holds the society back in its path to progress and prosperity. My central contention is with his portrayal of belief which he is confusing with political and sectarian religion.

Words are strong, poignant. They are offshoots of the gift of knowledge, a gift similar in potency of the Rings of Power, which Annatar, (i.e The Dark Lord Sauron) from the epic myth The Silmarillion, which forms the focal point of J.R.R Tolkien's Middle-earth Legendarium, gives to Men among other mythical beings. When the Ring-bearers put on the Rings, they seem imbued with a mysterious clairvoyance, which unlocks some deep subconscious faculties, leading them to extract valuable metals which in turn are used in the crafting of priceless stones, strong weapons as well as giving them the power of immortality, etc. However, there is a catch. The precious metal thus discovered from within the depths is powerful and is used in weaponry, but comes with an ancient fire demon that brings the mountain down on everyone. Age can be and is stretched, but averting death is a curse in itself, one longs to die but can't. Adding insult to injury is something worse than eternal damnation: eternity spent in servitude to the being who gave you those Rings as a gift in the first place. Power is corrupting, but to properly sum it up in the invaluable words of Frank Herbert, the author of Dune: "It is not power that corrupts, but that it has a tendency to attract the corruptible." That, in this case, is us, ladies and gentlemen. The humble seekers of a power fully capable of eventually depriving us of control and shepherding us into the chasm of delusion.

 In communications theory, there are two important concepts: the rational and the narrative paradigm. The rational paradigm is one as espoused by Aristotle in his Poetics: rhetoric should be emphasized majorly on logos, i.e the use of logic. Although, the rhetorician should be well-versed in pathos, logos and ethos to be aptly persuasive, Aristotle is more focused on the logical aspect. Aristotle's conception of applicable form of rhetoric was dealt a major blow when Walter Fisher presented the narrative paradigm theory. According to this theory, the narrative adopted by any speaker is immediately made more convincing should it lean more towards ethos, i.e storytelling. The proof of this can be found in the spread of religion all around the world. Religion contains within it a treasure trove of abstractions that may or may not be logically substantiated; which one has to be intuitive to truly comprehend. It is a story of epic proportions: of a God, a devil, angels, mythical realms above and below, and everything in between. It is all the more relatable, having mortal man as its subject matter. 

There is a contrast between worldly knowledge, which serves as the strong rational paradigm for making sense of the grounded nature of the omnipresent realities that engulf us, and the ever elusive narrative paradigm afforded by myth and religion. The rational frame of reference is alluring in the sense of what can be seen and in that of the patterns that can emerge, which can then be analyzed and discerned to form a picture of the future, and our better preparedness for every eventuality based off of the theories we have drawn or whether they've become laws via a defined scientific method. They could also be derivative of our own intellect, in the form of philosophy. Still, there are limitations to this all-encompassing comprehension. It's human. It continues to be documented, yet, despite seemingly having checked every box, still falls short. This is where writers like E.M Forster excel in, reasoning and substantiation of that reasoning as long as things can be made sense of, and be quantified by-the-book. In the preliminiary part of his essay, he makes sure to pray to be 'strengthened in his disbelief'. The entire narrative which follows after, is all cold, hard and sceptical reason with no benefit of the doubt given to what 'the other' might think or feel, exactly what can be expected from one praying to be strengthened in his disbelief.

Now, I'll be venturing a little into ad hominem territory on purpose before going further. Individuals like E.M Forster with a history of engaging in perverse acts antithetical to nature which inadvertently subvert their own morality, should have no authority to question the credentials of that which aligns perfectly with nature. Forster's mockery of faith is personally slighting, since he substitutes it for the political and sectarian weaponisation of organized religion as done by specific individuals. 

In the essay, Forster states that it is 'faith' spawning 'militant creeds', I say cut out the middleman and blame the individuals, who are the real culprits. These individuals, like Forster, have little knowledge of the subject matter yet proceed to their own version of self-righteous commentary, resulting in eventually violent rifts. As a Pakistani, this is tragic on a multitude of levels, given the culture of polarization that prevails and thus, is also systemically sustained.  Wise men build bridges, the foolish build barriers. Self-righteous commentary aside, little knowledge as the seed is a dangerous thing, tantamount to wielding power without the responsibility, the same standards which Forster, as an apparent proponent of liberalism, wants to apply to the 'others' in this case the more conservative like myself, already concerned about the dire condition that faith finds itself in. Such commentary tends to formulate or deepen reservations about faith in a world where abstinence is already being chalked up to oppression. 

The rest is written as Forster's subjective opinion which he quite subtly, chooses not to write as accepted fact. On faith, he says that it is 'stiffening'. This is problematic still, as by virtue of him being a celebrated writer, it translates as a widely accepted ideal and for the intuitively impressionable, has the potential to be a weapon in the arsenal of those like him choosing to be certain in their own disbelief by having their reservations validated as they are, as opposed to exerting conscious effort to quell them.  I know I might be getting ahead of myself here, but there are ramifications to such opinions especially in the contemporary context. We live in the real world, where all manner of dystopia seems gradually encroaching upon us. Without faith, we suffer the ravages of the postmodern cult of self which has caused an existential crisis of identity and by extension, meaning en masse. It also found its humble beginnings with someone innocently questioning the ideological basis of reality. With faith however, we are continually motivated to fashion the binary of what is objectively good and bad from the swamp of subjectivity before us, despite wave after wave of grounded realities crushing hope at every turn. Without faith, we would be living in a Machiavellian world, where even murder becomes justified,  since it might just be aligned with someone's vested interests. 

To conclude, that's that. If the reader came here expecting specifics or point-by-point logical substantiation of my opinion, I'm afraid, that's not a possibility. The narrative paradigm is all I  have to offer. That is, opening the reader up to the possibility of trying to feel what has been written, of appealing to ethos. The tumultuous times that so befall us drop us right in the thick of our story. This is a story rapidly approaching a culmination point, where the antagonist and the protagonist are reversed. The choices said to make the story progress are actually having the opposite effect. These are not arguments I'm making, to be debunked or fact-checked at face value, rather an opinion. More important than reality, is eventuality. At the risk of sounding like that bell-ringing preacher inserted for comic effect in Hollywood films who shouts "Repent!, repent!" as he moves through alleyways at night, this is where I sign off. That's Hollywood as E.M Forster for you. Or that WAS Hollywood as E.M Forster. Now, the once funny preacher has been replaced by a demonic child-molester. Simply showing the reality, or so they say.