The Politics of Elevation: Emma and The Crown
Peter Schultz
Politics is how humans “elevate” themselves, leading them to become vain rather than humble. “If Harriet, from being humble, were grown vain, it was her doing too.” [Emma]
But which condition is more suitable for Harriet’s capabilities, humbleness or elevation? In fact, which condition is more suitable for Emma’s capabilities, humbleness or elevation? And, finally, which condition is more suitable for humanity’s capabilities, humbleness or elevation? Which is more suitable for humans, a visionary/elevated politics or a humble politics?
Humans look on politics as the source of their elevation, even of transcendence. But what if that’s just plain wrong, that humans have it all upside down, that politics is the source of a vanity that only seems to elevate them, while leading them into misadventures that are not only deadly but dehumanizing?
[Is this, e.g., what “The Crown” exposed, thereby leading to its critical reception? Listen to Philip’s speech to Elizabeth in the last episode of the last season. “All things are subject to decay and when fate summons, even monarchs must obey.” John Dryden, quoted by Philip therein.]
No comments:
Post a Comment