Zena Hitz: Gulliver's Travels and the Failures of Human Understanding
What a lot of fun I had talking to Zena Hitz about Gulliver’s Travels. As well as discussing Swift, slavery, genocide, rationality, Christianity, and science, Zena told me that good philosophy is like a box of cake mix and that a liberal education requires you to be freed of false expertise. I also took Zena on a detour to discuss Iris Murdoch, the Catherine Project, and modern philosophy. TRANSCRIPT HENRY OLIVER: Today I am talking to Zena Hitz. Zena is a tutor at St. John’s College. She is a philosopher, the author of Lost in Thought. She runs the Catherine Project. She’s famous on Twitter. We don’t know how she does it all. Zena, welcome. ZENA HITZ: Thank you, Henry. It’s great to be here. OLIVER: And we’re talking about Gulliver’s Travels because it is 300 years since it was published, and it’s a book that you love. HITZ: A book that I’ve loved for a long time. First Encounter with Gulliver’s Travels OLIVER: So tell me, when did you first read it? HITZ: Well, it was an important moment for me. I was in high school, and I was admitted to a scholarship summer program which offered college courses at different campuses. There were some normal-looking college courses at normal-looking colleges. And then there was this course at St. John’s called Science as Literature, Literature as Science. [laughs] It had this description that was just unbelievable. And I thought to myself, “This is the one, obviously the one to go to.” So I went, and we read books that no one in their right mind would assign to high school students now, and maybe not then. The fragments of Parmenides, Plato’s Timaeus, selections from Aristotle’s Physics, Gulliver’s Travels. After reading a number of—preface to Ptolemy’s Almagest, geocentric astronomy. And we read Gulliver’s Travels after reading selections from Hooke’s Micrographia, so the inventor of the microscope, and Galileo’s Starry Messenger, which is one of the great first uses of the telescope to discover the nature of the moon and the satellites of Jupiter. So then we read Gulliver’s Travels. We also read Emma and Flannery O’Connor and various other things. And one of the faculty who was running it said at one point, “Well, we thought we’d throw a bunch of things together and see what you could do, what you could make of it. We didn’t actually have an idea of how these all fit together,” which I think was probably true. At any rate, I think I came to Gulliver’s Travels thinking about these scientists who were looking at very large things and very small things, and thinking in general about the follies of human perception, whether that was shown in literature or philosophy or what have you, the ways in which human perception and knowledge don’t work very well. And I think Swift is still one of the best people to—Gulliver’s Travels is still one of the best books about that because it’s in the mode of a travel diary, an eyewitness account. Gulliver is trained as a surgeon, by his own account. He at one point says he was a bit of a projector in his younger days, someone who undertook scientific projects. And he’s a terrible observer, the worst imaginable observer, and Swift so brilliantly lets us see through his eyes, lets us see all the things he doesn’t see. And I think it’s not just about seeing and knowing. It has a very profound, I think, moral and political set of commitments. So it’s a very humane book. It’s social criticism, but from a point of view of a very deep humanity. So I’ve always loved the book for these reasons since then. I came back to it more recently because it is part of the curriculum at St. John’s. So when I came back to teach there, I began to reread it. The other experience I had was that I wrote a long essay on it when I was an undergraduate. So those are my—I’m not any kind of expert. My knowledge of the historical context of the book is limited. It’s not zero, but it’s limited. But I have always loved it as an account of human understanding and its failures and the way that might impact how we live and how happy we can be. The Houyhnhnm Problem OLIVER: Have you changed how you think about it as you’ve taught it? HITZ: I have not really changed the way I think about it. It gets more—like all of these books, the more you read them, the more comes out of them, the more details come up. Hilarious. The more jokes you get, the more . . . I think the one more recent insight I had was, I hadn’t understood the full horror of the Houyhnhnms in the last book until relatively recently. I think that took me some time to really take on. It’s one of the cases where Gulliver’s misperceptions are a bit harder to see, and I think many readers just assume that Swift is endorsing the praise of the Houyhnhnms in some sense or other. OLIVER: There are some very serious critics in the past who have called them Swift’s ideal beings. Which at this point in history seems unthinkable, but it has been a belief among serious readers. HITZ: Yes, yes. And also common among students. Yes, it’s absolutely one of the wrongest opinions you could have about anything, I think. OLIVER: Why does Swift allow us to make that mistake? Are we bad readers out of the context, or has he made too good a job of his diversions and concealments and ironies? HITZ: That’s a great question, and I’ll just take a stab at it. I think that he has hit on a mode of misperception which is very deep to us, and it’s something that we’re much more guilty of. We could imagine that if we were in a place where everyone was small or everyone was large, we might make mistakes like Gulliver makes. But we all live, I think, in communities that are a bit like the Houyhnhnms. And so we are all very subject to these kinds of deceptions, and I think that’s how he gets us. That’s not to really excuse the bad readings because, you know, Gulliver does leave the land of the Houyhnhnms with a boat made out of human skin, which should—I think that moment should make you realize, if you haven’t yet, that something is very seriously wrong with Gulliver. Gulliver has been kind of destroyed as a person by his travels, and especially by this last trip. But if you pass over that little detail, maybe you think, “Oh, wow, he found some very simple beings.” OLIVER: Well, there’s also the great council where they debate the genocide of the Yahoos. HITZ: [laughs] Yes. OLIVER: And it directly contradicts several things Gulliver has come to believe about the Houyhnhnms, about the Yahoos, and about himself. And he’s completely unaware of these contradictions and so in awe of the Houyhnhnms that he doesn’t quite understand, I think, that he’s accounting a genocide. HITZ: That’s right. That’s right. OLIVER: Even though he uses a phrase from Genesis that’s very unmistakable. It’s a sort of remarkable moment of—particularly to us, having had the 20th century. I think that’s why Swift came back into favor in a way, because people used to say, Swift’s unbearable view of human nature . . . This is a great bit in Boswell’s Life of Johnson where, when they’re traveling through Scotland, they’re with a lady, and she says to Johnson, “Is any man naturally good?” And Johnson says, “No, no more than a wolf.” And Boswell says, “Well, sir, what about ladies?” And Johnson says, “God, no, absolutely not.” And this woman says, “Oh my God, this is worse than Swift,” utterly horrific view of human nature. But of course, we can actually say, did he go far enough? [laughter] I mean, Swift clearly understands something very real and deep. The council of genocide is horrifyingly familiar to us. And I think that’s much to Swift’s credit that he can see that, and to show that Gulliver would blind himself to it. And people still blind themselves to it, right? HITZ: That’s right. And I wonder—you would know more about this than me because it is a bit of a historical question, but my understanding is that quite a lot of the savagery, the worst parts of rule over men that we see in Gulliver’s Travels are pictures of Ireland in the 17th, 18th centuries. And I wonder if that took some time to reveal itself to the British, and in some ways it’s still not really as known as it might be. We think of the colonial project as being something that was directed at India and Africa— OLIVER: Faraway countries. HITZ: —faraway countries where people looked really different. And we’re not as familiar with the kinds of things that were done to the cuddly Irish with their nice music, and who we don’t think of as being people that you would savagely oppress like that. So I think— OLIVER: So, I think partly the English are not interested in their own history in the way that they are expected to be. And partly the English interest in Irish history has become very focused on the more recent events. And it’s very hard to get back past that. And it all becomes very complicated, and it’s a sort of different country. So there’s some of that, but I think generally we don’t want to know what we did, yes. HITZ: Well, and I think in anglophone countries in general, there’s going to be a history of something like that. To attribute it to the British is not to say that—I mean, Americans have chattel slavery and the genocide of the natives, and the Australians have their own situation. All of the anglophone countries have something like this on their conscience. I think that obscures the meaning of that final book. I think we don’t recognize—and that’s really to Swift’s credit, to have a social critique that is so real and so deep that you may not even recognize yourself in the picture. Slavery in Gulliver’s Travels OLIVER: Yes. When I read it again—I read it as an undergraduate, but I really was actually more interested in the other parts of Swift’s work. And I thought it was brilliant, and then I read it again. And it was more recently that—I didn’t understand how I couldn’t have seen it, but it’s basically a book about slavery, as I come back to it. And in each of the books there is enslavement of a different sort. So, to begin with, Gulliver is the one being kept in a box or kept in a house, or he’s chained up by the Lilliputians or Glumdalclitch. HITZ: Right. That’s right. OLIVER: She’s a very nice sort of master, as it were, [laughter] but he has that box that can be sealed, and the dwarf has him swiping at the wasps. And then the enslavement that the flying island has of the country below is like England and Ireland. And then in the final book, you know, the Houyhnhnms are whipping the Yahoos. HITZ: That’s right. OLIVER: The slavery thing gets worse and worse as the book goes on. And one of the things that’s clever is that it’s funny when Gulliver is enslaved, right? When the wasps are let out and he has to—and Swift sort of does that clever thing where he undermines things by making it a joke at the end. By the book of the Houyhnhnms, there is really very little humor. And the twist at the end is always dark. Gulliver can’t see that—he can see that he’s a bit like the Yahoos. But he can’t see that they’ve been enslaved in the way that he—the farmer wanted to take him around the kingdom and show him off, and he says, “I couldn’t possibly have had children in that condition because I couldn’t have it on my conscience that I had begotten a slave, someone born into slavery. I couldn’t do that.” HITZ: Right. OLIVER: Then he’s in the Houyhnhnms and he can’t—it’s quite remarkable. HITZ: [laughs] Yes. I don’t think it’s quite true that in the end there’s no humor. I read it with some Catherine Project group a couple of years ago, and one of the readers pointed out that it’s not obvious Gulliver isn’t leaving his home and sitting out in the ocean and always landing on England every single time; just every time, he lands there. And there’s something hilarious about an Englishman that discovers a place where there’s all horses, [laughter] and his love of horses overwhelms him, and he becomes persuaded that they’re the only rational beings that there are. I mean, that is funny. OLIVER: Yes, I agree. There’s a lot of irony and stuff. But I think it’s in Lilliput when he describes their manner of writing. And he says they don’t write from left to right as we do in England, or from right to left, or up-down like the Chinese, but from one corner to the other, as the ladies do in England. This is very funny, dry humor, and that sort of thing is gone. And the things that surprise you at the end of a sentence or a paragraph are more like, “Oh, and of course I used Yahoo skin to cover the boat.” And you’re like, oh my God, this is not a joke anymore. You know, in A Modest Proposal, he makes real humor out of those kind of horrors. And with the Houyhnhnms, I think he actually refuses the joke to make you feel the disgust, in a way. HITZ: Yes, that might be right. That might be right. Swift and Philosophy OLIVER: What do you think about the idea that the Houyhnhnms are drawn from the Phaedrus and Socrates’s idea of the soul with the two horses? And there’s the good, rational horse and the vulgar, passionate horse, and the Yahoos are the other horse. You see what I mean? HITZ: Yes, yes. OLIVER: Is Swift showing us the two sides, and Gulliver’s mistake is to prefer the one and not the— HITZ: Right, I think I have heard something like this before. I’m a bit skeptical. Swift doesn’t strike me as someone who uses philosophy in quite that way. I think he’s much more interested in Gulliver’s—the Houyhnhnms’ self-deception about the kinds of beings they are. They do not say “the thing which is not,” yet Gulliver’s master hides from him this conversation about the genocide for quite some time. And maybe we don’t know if he tells him quite the whole truth about it. So there’s— OLIVER: And he also conceals the fact that the others don’t like Gulliver because he’s a partial—a reasonable Yahoo, as it were. HITZ: Right. So their self-deception, Gulliver’s being taken in by their self-deception, the ways in which they—this is one of the ways that I think it’s profound about the nature of slavery. And to cheer us all up, I’ll make a Holocaust analogy, as you also did. When I was traveling in Germany some years ago, in one of their Holocaust museums, there was an image from a Nazi-era German newspaper of Jewish people living in complete squalor in the ghetto. And of course, they had forced them into squalor. But somehow they forced them into squalor, and then this reinforces the sense that they’re these rat-like beings. And there’s something very similar that the Houyhnhnms do to the Yahoos. They force them into this animal state, and then they say, “Oh God, look, these people are disgusting. They just don’t know how to act.” That seems to me the kind of level at which Swift is working. He is interested in the nature of a human being, but not in the abstract Platonic sense, I don’t think. He strikes me as someone who believes in common sense, common decency, basic freedom, and basic use of reason. And he finds in his time that there’s distorting teachings, distorting ways of behavior that have gotten people far off track. To me, that’s what it feels like it comes from. It doesn’t feel like Plato is in the background to me. OLIVER: Is there an extent to which, though, it’s a work of sort of anti-philosophy? As you say, Swift, he likes common sense. He likes ordinary reason, and he likes what he would call the revealed truth of Christianity. So he talks, in his sermons about people, it comes to you from God like a light. It’s revealed to you. And he doesn’t like this idea that the philosophers can work it all out. And in a way, that’s the same sort of mistake that the scientists think they can discover all this stuff, and they go in these crazy ways. And the Houyhnhnms are a bit like that. If you had philosopher-kings, they would end up being perverted examples of rationality because they’re ignoring the—so do you think it’s anti-philosophy in a way? The book is saying, “No, no, I don’t want philosophers”? Criticizing Elite Intellectual Culture HITZ: That’s definitely a plausible reading. But it’s hard to tell whether it’s anti-philosophy or anti a particular style of thinking. It’s worth pointing out, in that light, that Gulliver, when he arrives in the land of the Houyhnhnms, before he even meets a horse, he sees a Yahoo who, from what I can tell from the text, is trying to wave at him and say hello, who recognizes him. And he’s horrified. He sees him instantly as a monster. So I think immediately upon landing, he sees the Yahoos as monstrous, and that tells me that he must already be off kilter. So he’s not just corrupted by the Houyhnhnms; he’s been somehow led off track, away from the capacity to recognize fellow human beings before that. And he’s come from this—the third book is all about various kinds of inquiry, scientific endeavors, practical endeavors, talking to the greats of the past, necromancy, and various kinds of inquiry into wisdom or things like wisdom. And somehow that’s the thing that seems to push him to the point where he can no longer tell what a human being is. OLIVER: One of my favorite parts is when he’s with the wizards, and he asks to be shown Homer and Aristotle and all their commentators. And he says that there were vast rooms full of these commentators, endless numbers of them. But Homer and Aristotle didn’t recognize any of them because they were all so ashamed of the terrible things they’d said about these great men’s works that they kept themselves forever in a different part of the underworld. They couldn’t bear the shame of being revealed to having told lies and said second-rate things. It’s very, very funny. And I think that’s another sort of angle on which the book says, “You’re so tempted to make a comment and have an idea and be a philosopher, and you should just accept the revealed truth of what is known. Just stop it. Just stop it.” [laughter] HITZ: Well, I suppose maybe I would also put it this way, that Swift sees the condition of 18th-century Ireland, which is quite poor, very bad. And it’s ruled in a savage way by the English, who have a quite flourishing intellectual culture, as it happens, at this time. So I think what he might be is not a critic of philosophy so much as a critic of intellectual culture. Because intellectual culture seems to not only not help with existential concerns like slavery and oppression and savage poverty, but even serves to mask and hide and create illusions behind it. So that’s, I guess, how it strikes me, as a book that’s hostile to what you’d now call elite intellectual culture. And I don’t know how fundamental that critique is, in light of its inability to solve problems for real human beings or to obscure the causes of what’s going on with real human beings. OLIVER: I think it’s quite fundamental because outside of Gulliver’s—I think this comes into Gulliver’s Travels, but what he might have said more explicitly elsewhere is, there are people starving in the streets of Dublin. And we’ve got corrupt politicians and intellectuals saying all these things, but you know, here she is starving. You don’t need to work that out. [laughter] There’s no question—the reveal—just be a Christian and, like, for goodness’ sake . . . HITZ: Yes. OLIVER: And when, for example, he talks to the king of Brobdingnag, and there’s that wonderful satire of the English government and everything. And he says, “Those people understood mathematics and poetry and whatever, but I could never drive into their head any sense of the abstract or any of these speculative—they simply didn’t know what that was. They didn’t know what I was saying.” [laughter] And so in a way, his ideal government is anti-philosophical because it would just look at the human problem in front of it. It wouldn’t do speculative science. It wouldn’t think of itself as rational, all this Platonic stuff. It would just—she’s in rags, she has bare feet, you know? HITZ: Yes, that’s right. OLIVER: What do we need a philosopher-king? Like, what are you talking about? HITZ: Exactly. OLIVER: The priest understands this because he’s there in the city doing it. And is there something of that in the book, that constant resistance of the cleverness of people who cannot see daily life? HITZ: I think that’s absolutely true, and I think it’s probably one of the things I love about the book, because I think this somehow gets to something in my own heart. Even though I’m a professional intellectual—I have been my whole life—the distance between the concerns of professional intellectuals and the concerns of living, real people in various parts of the world is very large. And it’s even worse when, as it was when I was coming up in grad school, there’s a ton of explicit concern and various operations underway to improve life for others, which have zero connection with anything that anyone actually does. So I think the Laputans, which is the beginning of the third book, when Gulliver— OLIVER: The flying island. HITZ: Yes, when Gulliver visits the people on the flying island, who have one eye towards the heavens and one eye pointed inward. And they study music and mathematics, and they live in a giant flying saucer, which has the— OLIVER: And the flappers. HITZ: That’s right. [laughter] When someone needs to talk to them, someone flaps their ears so that they pay attention. And their wives all run off with working people because they can’t bear to be treated the way they are by men like this. And the flying saucer is not just distant. It also has the power to crush the towns underneath it if it judges them to be rebellious. This image will stick with you for the rest of your life. I mean, it’s absolutely perfect, and the perfect image of bad government of a kind when intellectual culture is prized. And it’s hinted early on in the book in Lilliput, when the rulers in Lilliput have to do these elaborate dances with ropes. OLIVER: Oh, with the king and the chief minister hold the pole, funny angles, and if you get under it, you get a green ribbon or a red ribbon. HITZ: Exactly. [laughter] And they have these athletic contests of grace and various colored ribbons, and that determine how far you get in the halls of power. OLIVER: Yes. Are you a cabinet minister or a junior minister? Yes, yes. HITZ: Exactly. So there, it’s all just a funny joke. But it develops, I think, into the Laputans, people who have kinds of expertise that are actually hostile to them doing any kind of humane governing. So yes, that seems right to me. Christianity in Gulliver OLIVER: To what extent is it a Christian book? HITZ: That’s an interesting question. I’ve never found a strong Christian element in it myself. There are satires of religious wars, both in Lilliput, where Lilliput’s at war with its neighboring city. Oh, wait a second, there’s two different disputes in Lilliput. One is about what side you cut your egg on. OLIVER: There are the Little-Endians and the Big-Endians, HITZ: Right. And then there’s also one about heel size. So there’s two different kinds of disputes. OLIVER: With the marvelous image that the king is a Short-Heeler. But they think that the heir to the throne might be favorable to the High-Heelers because he has one heel slightly higher than the other, and he walks with a wobbly gait. HITZ: [laughs] That’s right. This, again, in Lilliput is just utterly hilarious, outrageous, very silly, obviously a parody of religious wars between different kinds of Christians. But it resurfaces towards the end. It’s the Houyhnhnms, where he talks to the Master Horse— OLIVER: And the horse sort of pretends to this great rationality, simply can’t understand that men would kill each other over the question of whether flesh is bread or bread is flesh. HITZ: That’s right. That’s right. That’s right. So there’s definitely disparaging remarks about religious wars. And as you’re talking about it, where along with Swift’s praise of common sense, there’s a kind of basic Christian morality, which is that the poor and the suffering need attention. That all strikes me as Christian. Apart from that, I’m not sure. If you have a religious take, I’d be interested to hear it. OLIVER: I find it very interesting that Swift had quite strict beliefs. He was not in favor of Catholics. He thought Dissenters should be tolerated, but he wanted the Test Act. He was very particular about all these things. And in his other works, he’s quite direct about that. But in this book, he achieves a kind of high ambivalence. And he’s not a Little-Ender or a Big-Ender. HITZ: That’s right. OLIVER: And he says the religious text on which this is based simply says that you must break the egg at the most convenient end. HITZ: [laughs] That’s right. OLIVER: Now, of course, in reality, he’s a Little-Ender, and he’s very committed to the Reformation, and he thinks it’s all terrible that they’re not. And it’s interesting that someone with such angry, insistent beliefs on the Anglican Church would take this ambivalent position. And he satirizes so much. But the anti-slavery stuff, the description of the Laputans bringing the island down, and then he says, “I’ve never seen so much want and misery, and there’s a wild look in their eyes, and they’re wearing rags.” I mean, this is Dublin, right? This is just, along with the slavery, this basic Christian concern for the oppressed, the poor, the suffering. HITZ: Yes, that’s right. OLIVER: And so I don’t quite know. It’s almost like the book is saying, again with this anti-intellectual thing, all these doctrinal disputes and which church this and who believes that. And here we have slaves and poor people and beggars and starving people. HITZ: Right. OLIVER: Christianity should deal with that first. So is the implicit criticism of his fellow Christians, in a way, that they’re more interested in these disputes than in the fact that there are enslaved people and suffering people and—you see what I mean? HITZ: Yes, that’s right. OLIVER: And Gulliver—the Houyhnhnms are highly rational but not Christian, which is a significant omission. And by the end, are you supposed to wonder if Gulliver actually isn’t very much of a Christian? Because he can see this suffering and not respond to it at all. HITZ: Right, when maybe the—is the best person in the book the King of Brobdingnag? Does that seem right? The person with the—at least who says the best things? OLIVER: He says the best things. I think the best person is Glumdalclitch. She shows real charity and real love towards him. HITZ: What about the Houyhnhnm, the one who likes him, who says, “Fare thee well, gentle Yahoo”? It’s tear-jerking— OLIVER: Oh, the sorrel nag. HITZ: The sorrel nag. I can literally weep at that moment when she says, “Fare thee well, gentle Yahoo.” OLIVER: That’s true. That’s true. She and Glumdalclitch are maybe more similar characters. Yes, yes, yes. HITZ: They’re similar characters. Okay. OLIVER: And they have that basic, you don’t need to call it Christian. You don’t need—it doesn’t need theology. HITZ: Humane. I would call it humane. Yes. OLIVER: They have that basic love of their fellow. You know, Glumdalclitch doesn’t say, “Oh, how amusing this little man is, or how entertaining, or I can make—” She says, “He must be cared for. He looks a bit like me. He must be cared for.” HITZ: Right. OLIVER: And the sorrel nag, again, has the love of the fellow creature. HITZ: That’s right. That’s right. OLIVER: So I think Swift might be bringing in this, what he thinks of as the revealed truth of Christianity. Like, you shouldn’t need telling, you shouldn’t need to argue. It’s there. HITZ: Right. This is just me making things up, which is what I’m here for. We’re podcasting. Yes. OLIVER: Yes, of course. Also, is that not what the philosophers would do? That’s what Swift would say. HITZ: But if I was going to make something up, what I would say is something like this: that Swift to me, from the testimony of Gulliver’s Travels, which is the book of his I really know the best. I don’t know much about the rest of it. He has a level of self-awareness and sophistication. So, he knows that that religious difference is being used as a pretext. He knows that it is obscuring the suffering of these people. So, for the purposes of the book, he says, “Look, if you’re a smart person, if you’re a smart ruler, if you’re an actually humane, intelligent, commonsensical ruler, you know that the fact that they have the wrong religious views is not a reason for them to be enslaved and oppressed and starved.” So that would be my suspicion. And that’s why I think, to me, the religion is so light, because it’s not really a religious problem. It’s actually just a human problem and a political problem that is, how do you run your country so that these subject peoples are allowed to be free and develop themselves and be full human beings? That would be my made-up guess. Students’ Views of Gulliver OLIVER: What do undergraduates think? What is it that they find interesting in the book, and what do they like or dislike? HITZ: It’s been a couple of years. I think they like this idea that—we all think travel is very broadening, a great way to think about the world. You know, you can learn so much about one’s fellow human beings. And whatever else is going on in Gulliver’s Travels, travel does not necessarily produce enlightenment. So I think they like the attention to the ways in which, even when we are trying to learn, we fail to learn. And the ways in which structures of learning, like traveling or studying science, might actually make you worse and not better, things like that. But it’s not a book—I think it’s fair to say it’s not one of the favorite books of the undergraduates. OLIVER: Okay. HITZ: I think they find it a little bit distant, and I’m not sure why that is. OLIVER: Is it because it sort of looks like a novel, but it’s not what we have come to expect a novel to be? And it sort of has that— HITZ: I think that’s right. OLIVER: The pre–Jane Austen novel is kind of weird to us now. HITZ: Well, they love Don Quixote. OLIVER: Okay. HITZ: And that is a challenge of a similar kind. It’s a novel which doesn’t quite read like a novel, and the humor is kind of old. I mean, it’s also true—undergraduates, in my experience, in general—I hope they’ll forgive me for saying this on a podcast—they’re not always good at comedy. They tend to think that serious things must be tragic. OLIVER: You can’t get an A by making a joke. HITZ: Well, more that they have a sense that an intellectual life is something serious. It’s serious. OLIVER: Oh, yes. Okay. And the syllabus slightly reinforces that, doesn’t it? HITZ: Well, it’s sort of self-reinforcing because we used to read more Aristophanes. We used to read Rabelais. OLIVER: If you do Shakespeare, it’ll be the tragedies. HITZ: No, no, we do Shakespeare comedies. OLIVER: Oh, you do? Okay. HITZ: Yes. We have As You Like It and The Tempest. And do we have more tragedies? Maybe one more tragedy than comedy, but not a terrible imbalance. OLIVER: Well, that’s good. HITZ: It’s not Shakespeare-type comedy that’s—maybe, correct me if I’m wrong, a Shakespeare comedy is something that ends in a marriage, more or less. OLIVER: More or less. HITZ: It’s things that are funny—they don’t necessarily think that humor is a way of thinking. OLIVER: Do they struggle with irony? HITZ: No, not usually. As long as it’s serious irony, Anyway, I’m not sure why. I think I’m making things—I’m going too far out of the grounds for drawing conclusions. Favorite Parts of the Book OLIVER: Sure. Do you have a favorite passage? HITZ: One of my favorites is the part—is it Balnibarbi where they have people who try to speak with objects? OLIVER: Oh, yes, yes, yes. HITZ: And they have to carry around wagons full of things because they never know what you might want to talk about. [laughter] That’s so weird. Because I think I spent a lot of time studying with philosophers, there’s a bit of—something’s on the nose about this. OLIVER: Yes. HITZ: You know, it’s like, “No, you’ve got to say exactly—no, that’s too imprecise. You have to say exactly what you mean.” Bernard Williams, the great philosopher, has something complaining about how contemporary philosophers are very controlling of their readers. They don’t want anyone to make the slightest mistake about what they mean by a particular word. That’s how the people who speak by objects strike me. OLIVER: Do you think that is a problem of contemporary philosophy? HITZ: Oh, sure. Yes, absolutely. Yes. The way Williams puts it is that when you write something, it should be like a cake mix, and the reader should be able to put their own egg and bake the cake themselves. OLIVER: Oh, I see. You mean like a box of mix, yes. HITZ: Yes, yes, exactly. It’s like a box of cake mix. Whereas making the cake painstakingly and force-feeding it bite by bite to the reader is not actually an— OLIVER: Telling them how it tastes. HITZ: Telling them how it tastes is not an educational endeavor. OLIVER: When does this become too dominant in philosophy? HITZ: It’s a feature of 20th-century analytic philosophy to be very careful with the meanings of words. And it’s by no means universal; it’s just a natural vice to the territory. Iris Murdoch OLIVER: Is this a problem for someone like Iris Murdoch, or is it more the A. J. Ayer type? HITZ: No, it’s the A. J. Ayer type, not Iris Murdoch. No, Iris Murdoch is heterodox outside of the— OLIVER: Do you like her philosophy? HITZ: I do, yes. OLIVER: What do you like about it? Platonic? HITZ: Now, see, I came here to talk about Swift. [laughter] OLIVER: I know, but you made such a good point about the satire of philosophers. HITZ: I like her writing for a more general educated audience, her not making assumptions about the philosophical training of her readers, and her use of Plato for sure, which is quite interesting and creative. She sort of ingests Plato and does something with it that I think is very interesting. OLIVER: Is she properly appreciated as a Platonist, or do you think there’s more attention to be paid? HITZ: There’s probably more attention to be paid, but she gets some attention. She gets some attention. I also don’t think it was particularly helpful, these two books that came out a couple of years ago about Murdoch, Foot, Midgley, and Anscombe. OLIVER: Oh, yes, yes, yes. I only read one of those. It was quite good. HITZ: It might be quite good, but those four women are quite different from one another. So it’s an example of where attention to identity could obscure as much as it— OLIVER: Well, one of the books was more about the ideas—they were both obviously about the ideas—and one of them was more about the fact that they were together in Oxford. And that they benefited from hanging out, talking, doing different sorts of work, sleeping with each other’s husbands, et cetera. HITZ: Yes, all the good stuff. OLIVER: And from the more sociological point of view, it was very interesting to see that, actually, a lot of what Murdoch did was bound up with her friendships and relationships, in that the argument basically is, A. J. Ayer and the others get sent away because of the war. So these four women are actually—they’ve been banned from this seminar and told they’re not allowed. Well, now they can sit around and do what they want to do. And it worked, and they all produced very interesting things. So from that point of view, I think it was—but I agree with you, Elizabeth Anscombe and Iris Murdoch are not the same. [laughter] HITZ: Not even particularly similar. I also feel like I’ve read enough of Murdoch’s novels to have a sense of what the sociological situation was like. OLIVER: You like the novels? HITZ: I do like them, yes. OLIVER: Do you have favorites? HITZ: I can’t remember the name of my favorite because I haven’t read them for years. It’s one of the things I read years ago, the one—I’d remember it if I saw the title. There’s an LSD trip at the beginning of it. OLIVER: Oh, The Good Apprentice. I love that book. HITZ: The Good Apprentice, yes. I think that was my favorite. But I never fell in love with it. I just liked it, and I found it interesting, and I found the sociology interesting. Okay, this is what academics at this time period were doing. What to Pair with Swift OLIVER: We got diverted. HITZ: “We” got diverted. [laughs] OLIVER: We did. If Swift is on a great books syllabus, what is it good to pair him with? If people are reading Swift, on or off a syllabus, do you think there are other—Hooker, you said, which I think would be interesting. HITZ: No, Hooke. It’s Hooke. OLIVER: Hooke. Hooke. That’s a very good point. HITZ: The guy who wrote Micrographia, who has the enormous picture of the flea. OLIVER: Yes, yes, yes. So that would be good. But any other? Is it worth reading Plato alongside him? HITZ: Well, I like to—he’s on the list for something we called Life of the Mind Seminar at Catherine Project, which is our introduction to the life of the mind. OLIVER: And just to tell people, the Catherine Project—this is not a university. Anyone can join a seminar. HITZ: That’s right. It’s an open online readers community. Consists of small, high-quality conversations, mostly on Zoom, some in person. OLIVER: You could be some kid, an accountant, a dentist, whatever, and you come and do a—you’ve got a PhD running a seminar, and you get that experience. HITZ: Right. Some of them are peer led, so they’re not necessarily PhDs running them. The reading groups are not necessarily run by PhDs. But the core program in which the Life of the Mind Seminar is—either a PhD or an ABD [all but degree] or someone with some academic experience is usually leading that. We have it there, and we have it there with a set of books that are meant to disorient rather than to orient. So one of the difficulties with reading great books with more or less random selections of adults is that people feel uncertain, out of place. And they bring expertise, real or fake, to the table, which makes it very difficult to have a conversation. It’s usually fake expertise, for what it’s worth. OLIVER: Give us an example of what you mean by fake expertise. HITZ: Well, so someone will have—we’ll be, say, reading Hamlet. Someone will have taken a class on Shakespeare in college, and they’ll say, “Actually, we’re asking this question. But what I learned, my professor told me, is that Hamlet actually symbolizes—he has an Oedipus complex and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and then this is what this means, and this is what that means.” And then your conversation’s over, because you need to focus just on the text that’s shared between the— OLIVER: It’s not a crossword puzzle. HITZ: Exactly. It’s not a crossword puzzle, and it’s not something where—or the other—people often, again, they feel a bit on their back feet. So they’ll google a bunch of stuff about the author, and they’ll start tossing out random facts about the book or about the author, about the context. And again, you don’t get really into the meat of the book that way. So, Gulliver’s Travels is there to help us think about ways in which we might not be expert in things we’re expert. Ways in which we might think we understand something and not understand it. And ways in which people who, with every appearance of seriousness and scientific principle, can just say unbelievably stupid things. So it’s a very, very good book for that, where in that sense, it’s I think very good for any liberal education program. It’s liberating that way. One of the things we need to be liberated from is false expertise. OLIVER: You’re talking really about these secondhand opinions that you haven’t interrogated and come to understand yourself. HITZ: Exactly. Exactly, exactly, exactly. OLIVER: This is what Mill says. Everything is new to someone, and the real genius is that you find it out. HITZ: Exactly. OLIVER: You don’t get taught it. Yes, yes. HITZ: Exactly, exactly. So real learning is things you find for yourself. Anyway, that’s what I like it with. As for pairing it, yes, I think it would just depend on what you were—I don’t have a clear thought about that. I think it’d be good to pair it with Galileo’s Starry Messenger and preface to Hooke’s Micrographia. But you could also pair it with Emma. Be quite good, actually, because Emma is also about someone who really doesn’t know what they’re doing and has no idea. Thinks they know what’s going on; they really have no idea what’s going on. OLIVER: Yes. Hamlet as well, in fact. HITZ: I guess so. Does he not know what’s going on? OLIVER: Who’s diverting now? [laughter] Well, there’s an interesting question, isn’t there, about whether Hamlet has legitimate doubts. So he says, “This ghost could be a demon. I should be careful. I don’t know what I’m doing. I’m going to pretend to be mad. I’m going to find out.” Or whether he just doesn’t want to see the truth in front of him, and he quote-unquote “delays” because of that. I don’t know if you have a view. HITZ: I don’t think he’s deluded. I think the problem is something different, but I haven’t thought enough about it recently to know what his volitional obstacle is. But I don’t think he’s deluded. I think he sees what’s going on, but there’s something about acting that doesn’t work for him. OLIVER: An internal— HITZ: Something internal. Something internal. In a way, I find the play very hard. I don’t know what, for instance, what does that obstacle have to do with Ophelia? What’s going on with that? Anyway, he’s very mysterious, but I don’t—yes, that’d be my sense, is that he’s not— OLIVER: Do you buy this idea that he’s a nihilist? HITZ: No, although he’s definitely faced with something like nihilism. He has to look at it. And of course, the play does end with everyone dead, [laughs] so it’s not obvious that he’s wrong. Sympathy for Gulliver OLIVER: This question hangs over Gulliver as well. Is the problem by the end that he’s basically become a nihilist? His response to the Yahoos is to deny meaning, deny the possibility of meaning, to shut himself away. HITZ: He is a true misanthrope. He hates human beings and refuses to interact with them and in that sense, in some way, removes himself from any further mistakes. In another way, the mistake that he’s in is so massive that that hardly seems like a consolation. But yes, he’s definitely stuck, and he’s stuck in a place where who he is—because he’s a human being. We have to remember that. So he’s in a place of total self-hatred and the hatred of his neighbor, what you’d call from the Christian perspective a total loss of charity. Is that nihilist? I don’t know, but it’s definitely bad. It’s not a good state to be in. Maybe I don’t know what you mean by nihilism exactly. OLIVER: Are we supposed to disapprove of him at the end or sympathize with him? HITZ: Disapprove, I think. OLIVER: Yes? You don’t feel sorry for him? HITZ: I do a bit. OLIVER: But not much. HITZ: Well, should I? OLIVER: I have come to believe—yes, this is what I’ve come to feel in subsequent readings, is that Gulliver, as you say, is very mistaken. He thinks he understands things that he does not understand. He has the sort of pretense of rationality, but he lacks any sort of meta rationality to see what his limits are. And he becomes, therefore—he doesn’t advocate genocide, and he doesn’t take any pleasure in using Yahoo skin, but he’s just completely null to it. There’s a sort of void there where human feeling ought to be. And it’s tragic for him. It’s a tragic ending that he is so isolated. And we can’t sympathize with him, as it were, but we can feel sort of awful that he’s shriveled into this state rather than judging or blame. I think one of the persistent themes of the book is, as I say, this kind of basic love of fellow creature, the Glumdalclitch or the sorrel. And if you take that from the book, you will wish you could bring Gulliver back. HITZ: Right. What you’re saying reminds me that there is an interesting parallel in Plato’s dialogues that I hadn’t thought of before, Plato’s Parmenides, which is perhaps the most difficult Plato’s dialogue. So it’s a conversation between young Socrates and the philosopher Parmenides. The first third of it is relatively clear, some arguments against what people think of as Plato’s theory of forms. Then there’s an extensive, insane dialectical process where various theses about the connection between being and oneness are both argued for and then refuted, and argued for and then refuted, pages and pages and pages and pages of it. So this seems to be—it’s Parmenides and Zeno who are running Socrates through this ringer. And the person at the very beginning of the dialogue who they have to go find, to tell him the story of how Socrates met Parmenides, used to study philosophy. But now he just trains horses. [laughs] One of my teachers pointed this out to me, and I’ve never been able to get over it, that he spent this time doing philosophy, and he’s like, “You know what? I’m going to work with horses for the rest of my life. If I never hear another human voice, that’s fine with me.” So I think that is an interesting parallel. And I think it is not really that uncommon to see people who are totally disillusioned with relating to humans, who then relate to animals instead, like they devote themselves to animals. OLIVER: But on that reading, it might be a disillusionment with philosophical humanity. It might be philosophy that’s killed Gulliver’s human feeling. HITZ: That’s right. Well, I think that’s one possibility, one very strong possibility. That’s why I think the Houyhnhnms come after the Laputans. Going to the furthest reaches of his intellectual interests just destroys his humanity. But it doesn’t seem like exhaustion in the same way that whoever, I can’t remember his name, the character who relates the Parmenides, where you just think he must be exhausted from having heard more than one conversation like this. [laughter] And just in the stable with the horses eating oats, I mean, it’s just delightful. It’s just so peaceful, you know? OLIVER: Bucolic, pastoral, yes. HITZ: Yes, exactly. Exactly. Maybe you’re right that we should be more sympathetic to someone in that situation. OLIVER: Well, next time you read it, you can tell me if you change your mind. HITZ: All right. I will tell you if I change my mind. OLIVER: Very good. Zena Hitz, thank you very much. HITZ: Thank you very much, Henry Oliver. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.commonreader.co.uk
