Following September 11th, an interesting debate developed between Stanley Fish from the University of Illinois and John Carey of Oxford. This paper revolves around three of their articles, which in chronological order are "Condemnation Without Absolutes" and "Postmodern Warfare: the Ignorance of our Warrior Intellectuals" by Stanley Fish and "A Work in Praise of Terrorism?: September 11 and Sampson Agonistes" by John Carey. Both men have a background in Milton studies and in this debate examine how literary critics might respond to the terrorist attacks. Fish focuses his articles on the backlash against postmodernism and Carey on how Milton's "Sampson Agonistes" can be applied to current events. Less than two months after the attacks, Fish begins "Condemnation Without Absolutes" with the anecdote that "a reporter called to ask me if the events of Sept. 11 meant the end of postmodernist relativism" (A19). This paper explores why a real event could mean the end of a literary discourse and what, if anything, this has to do with John Milton.

In "Postmodern Warfare," Stanley Fish writes that "there is no public space, complete with definitions, standards, norms, criteria, etc., to which one can have recourse in order to separate out the true from the false, the revolutionary from the criminal" (35). In this view, one act cannot be considered absolutely right or wrong no matter how extreme that act might seem to some. Two months later, John Carey's article "A Work in Praise of Terrorism?" addresses Fish's book How Milton Works rather than his more recent articles regarding postmodernism. In that book, Fish suggests that Milton wrote "Samson Agonistes" in such a way that the reader "becomes aware of two kinds of related uncertainties: an uncertainty as to the springs (or motivations) of human action, and an uncertainty as to the connection between events in the world of man and the will of God (414)." Even if God exists as an absolute judge of right and wrong his ways are necessarily unknown to man. Fish's argument hinges on the presumption that Milton does not depart from the story's biblical origins and therefore Samson's act of killing the Philistines is a virtuous one. Although Samson is uncertain of his own motives, as evidenced by a moment of hesitation before tearing down the temple, the reader would be familiar with the biblical story and know that the act is part of God's plan. Most of Fish's analysis traces how rational reasons for Samson to commit mass murder are systematically suggested and then undermined in the play so that Milton makes it "impossible to justify Samson in conventional or external terms" (428). Since Samson's action is "an expression, however provisional, of his reading of the divine will, ... no other standard for evaluating it exists (426 italics his)." It is this that Carey disputes in "A Work in Praise of Terrorism?" In opposition to the postmodern assertion that there are no absolutes to which one can have recourse, Carey states that "to most people common humanity supplies a 'standard for evaluating' mass murder" (2002, italics his).

Rather than addressing Fish's writing in direct response to the terrorist attacks, Carey applies the views expressed in How Milton Works to recent events. In his Interpretive Thesis, Fish argues that "when one interprets Milton, the language should be allowed to generate questions of philosophy, theology, history, and politics rather than the other way around" (24). In other words, a fit reader of Milton has no choice but to come to the writer's own conclusions as a result of reading and understanding the text. In "Samson Agonistes,' this means that Milton does not intend his readers to understand the protagonist's actions since "ultimate effects, which would provide a true standard of judgment, are known only to God; we [the readers] can neither act by calculating them, nor evaluate actions as if we were cognizant of them" (428). The reader is forced onto the same journey as Samson and for the play to make sense must realize that, though God exists as an absolute authority, it is impossible to understand his plan by rational means. The literary debate lies in whether or not Samson acts virtuously by committing mass murder and if his motivation is actually derived from God. In "A Work in Praise of Terrorism?" Carey disagrees that Samson's murder is unquestionably virtuous. He suggests that "Milton rewrites his biblical source, removing Samson's prayer and the consequent restoration of his strength [by God]. In the Book of Judges, these seem to show that the slaughter is God's will. Their excision throws the question open" (16). Rather than glorifying virtuous action without the aid of rational understanding, Carey suggests that the message of "Samson Agonistes" is, "if you suppose you have private access to God's mind, and act on the supposition, it can have hideous consequences" (16).

This is a perfectly reasonable assertion and his article would have been much less controversial had he not gone on to say that "for many, Christian and Muslim, that is a lesson of September 11 also" (16). Suddenly, Carey has introduced Milton into the discussion of a real, and recent, event. As he puts it, "events in the real world inevitably change the way we read," (15) but if the same criteria by which Samson's act is judged virtuous or not are said to judge the hijackers of September 11th, then Carey is suggesting the opposite: what we read changes the way we understand events in the real world. Carey's application of Milton's "Samson Agonistes" to September 11th is only valid if one asserts that Milton's literary views of right and wrong, rooted in the history and religious understanding of seventeenth century England, are the views shared by everyone today. Whether these views are in accordance with an absolute such as God, Milton's or otherwise, or what Carey refers to as "common humanity," this absolute is unquantifiable. Neither God nor the whole of humanity can be invoked in a literary debate because even if one disagrees with postmodernism and says that an absolute basis for judgment exists, there is no way to know what that judgment may be. Still, I believe that Carey evokes something important by using the phrase "common humanity" to refer to shared experience. If there is something that crosses boundaries of time and culture, fiction and real events, then it is not the judgement of murder but more broadly, how people experience death.

I suggest that literature and literary criticism, whether of the postmodern type that Fish expounds or Carey's more concrete belief in a "common humanity," often seek to answer the question "who is to blame?" and that this is an answerable question. Fish suggests that, though there are no absolute solutions, there are ones "backed up by the tried-and-true procedures and protocols of a well-developed practice or discipline—history, physics, economics, psychology, etc" (33). What any of these disciplines, and here I include literary criticism, cannot answer is the more metaphysical question that is brought up by September 11th and similar events, and that is "why do people die?"
The distinction between these two questions ("who is to blame?" and "why do people die?") needs to be made because the metaphysical question is one that literary discourse cannot answer definitively. Even for a Christian such as Milton, God's ways are mysterious. Such a question creates tension that makes universal answers appealing, and in this context asking "if the events of Sept. 11 meant the end of postmodernist relativism," as Fish's reporter does, seems almost hopeful. Fish asserts that "if we reduce our enemy to 'evil,' we conjure up a shape-shifting demon, a wild-card moral anarchist beyond our comprehension and therefore beyond the reach of any counterstrategies" ("Condemnation" 15). If we are asking "why do people die?" something as monumental as "evil," something intrinsically beyond our power of understanding, must be invoked in order to answer it.

However, asking "who is to blame?" immediately puts us back into the social realm, the answerable, and if one so chooses, the realm of literary discourse. Postmodernism is not an end to culpability in a practical or legal sense but rather, as Fish puts it, "the practice of putting yourself in your adversary's shoes, not in order to wear them as your own but in order to have some understanding (far short of approval) of why someone else might want to wear them" ("Condemnation" 16). He does not propose that the hijackers cannot be blamed for committing murder, but that the basis on which one judges them cannot be made from a universal standard.

As for Carey, his assertion that "to most people common humanity supplies a 'standard for evaluating' mass murder" is problematic. The hijackers of September 11 must be included in the category "common humanity" and as such, it is doubtful that they considered their act of mass murder and suicide to be evil. Carey's universalizing tendencies reduce our ability to understand their motives by confusing the human reaction of shock and sadness in the face of death with the social act of assigning blame. His argument that "if you suppose you have private access to God's mind, and act on the supposition, it can have hideous consequences" is accurate, but should be amended to, "consequences that seem hideous for somebody who isn't you."

In conclusion, the question of how murder is to be punished can and should be debated at all levels, but no answer will ever address the larger issue that is created by the specter of September 11th: that over 3,000 people are dead and regardless of who is to blame, this is something that we as a society might never understand.

 

Works Cited

Carey, John.. "A Work in Praise of Terrorism?: September 11 and Sampson Agonistes." Times Literary Supplement 6 Sep. 2002: 15-16.

Fish, Stanley. "Condemnation Without Absolutes." New York Times 15 Oct. 2001: A19.

__________. How Milton Works. Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2001.

__________. "Postmodern Warfare: the Ignorance of our Warrior Intellectuals." Harper's Magazine July 2002: 33-40.

Milton, John. "Samson Agonistes." The Poems of John Milton. Ed. John Carey and Alastair Fowler. London: Longmans, 1968.