The insightful posts about this week’s readings bode well for another lively discussion in class. I particularly like the fact that your examples illustrate such a clear range from religious to secular forms of apocalypticism in American society. As Charles Strozier points out, drawing on Richard Hofstadter’s classic essay, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” such tendencies toward paranoia and conspiracy belief characterize much in this culture. If they have moved ever onward to include media and everyday life, it is in part because of the internet’s capacity to spread such views widely and with the appearance of credibility.
I also find it noteworthy to see your explorations of how these views can be analyzed effectively by citing your own tendencies (at times) to experience some of the symptoms of apocalypticism, albeit in benign form. Denial of it altogether might possibly be a “bad sign.” One of the reasons I embarked on the study of apocalyptic belief, way back when, was to try to understand my own utopian/millennialist leanings and an inclination toward seeing other political views in a reductive way that smacked of dualism.
Equally rewarding are the ways in which your responses gesture toward alternative modes of thought, as Sam points out in his conclusion about an end that “constantly flows around us.” So too Grecia’s links between Gandhi’s critique of unChristlike Christians, the story of the big hat, and the elevation of war as a God-sanctioned practice.
I want to make special note of both Andreas’ and Mac’s posts because they have engaged in the kind of textual analysis that I want to see in your research papers. In each case, they have taken a key element of the analysis that the readings provide and then expanded on it (as Andreas did with Strozier’s seals) or criticized it (as Mac did with Jones). What happens in this process is a more concrete argument that gives a readers something to latch onto in response—and thus encourages further discussion.
