The political exegesis of Nebraska's Capitol

By Stephen C. Griffith

Especially in the midst of a political season, let’s take a moment to think about the “why” of politics. The July Fourth holiday always prompts me to think about political roots. The obvious basic source is the Declaration of Independence, and I look forward to the annual reading of our nation’s founding document on National Public Radio. If I can’t listen, I get out my copy and read it myself. For this review, however, let me suggest a local text: the Nebraska State Capitol.

Perhaps it seems odd to “read” a building as a text, but allow me a brief foray into history by way of setting my thoughts in context. The great cathedrals of Europe were built for many reasons, both sublime and mundane: as a testament to faith, a landmark for the town, a community gathering place, a religious center. At great expense the builders adorned the churches with sculpture and stained glass, not simply for beauty’s sake, but to recount the stories of the Bible and the teachings of the faith. In an age when Bibles were handwritten and thus costly and not available to the general public—and when few people could read anyway—the message of Christianity was carved in stone. The ornamented cathedrals became texts that taught the basics of the faith.

In similar fashion the Nebraska State Capitol is a center for government, a landmark visible for miles, a symbol for Lincoln and the state, and a stage for public statements. It is also a thing of beauty, adorned with sculpture, mosaics and paintings that tell a story—the story of the land and people of Nebraska, and the story of democracy and law.

This is no haphazard accumulation of memorabilia and ideas. The architect, Bertram Goodhue, retained philosopher Hartley Burr Alexander to coordinate the artwork and symbolism to be included in the building. Alexander selected themes and scenes from history, along with sayings of the philosophers that articulated an understanding of the nature of democracy, the purpose of government and the history of law. I propose that, taken together, they constitute a political canon, a text that serves as the source and measure for all subsequent statements. The Capitol states what we say we believe about our life together as citizens. From the rich abundance of material in this stele of democracy, let me select five of the sayings as a starting point for identifying this creed.

I should acknowledge that I use the term exegesis here a bit loosely. The word comes from a Greek root with the meaning “to lead out.” The purpose is to draw the meaning out of a given text. Exegesis involves an extensive and critical interpretation of an authoritative text, especially of a holy scripture, but is also used to describe the elucidation of philosophical and legal texts. I will not attempt here the critical analysis of word meanings, historical context and application through history that a true exegesis would entail. And I confess in advance that I may slip into eisegesis, which means to read one’s own interpretation into a given text.

Two phrases of Aristotle remind us that humans are social creatures. The first, located in the frieze surrounding the rotunda, affirms, “A community, like an individual, has a work to do.” We Americans are an individual-centered society. We applaud individual achievements even though they almost invariably depend on the support of family, friends and society, and often would be impossible without the contributions of others who have gone before. The text does not deny the importance of individual effort, but affirms that the community also has a work. Indeed, Aristotle’s words imply that the individual’s work must include making a contribution to the whole.

What is this work? The balustrades on either side of the north entrance display a pair of blessings: “Honour to pioneers who broke the sods that men to come might live.” “Honour to citizens who build an house of state where men live well.” The first of these sayings penned by Alexander suggests that the individual task of exploration and settlement did not occur in isolation. Even the solitary trailblazing of the most antisocial of the early explorers paved the way for others to follow. The pioneer families who “broke the sod,” independent as they seemed, relied heavily on each other for support and encouragement. Stories abound of the hard work of family members of all ages, and of the generosity and compassion of neighbors in time of need.

The second of Alexander’s blessings acknowledges that mere survival does not exhaust the purpose of humanity. It is not enough simply to live; we are meant to live well. This is accomplished through the development of communities after the initial settlement. We look to the next generation to build on the earlier efforts, erecting “an house of state.” Although the “house” which Alexander had in mind likely was the Statehouse, the term carries a double meaning: It can be a physical house and can also connote a household, or even generations of descendents of a family line. Thus the citizens who followed the settlers were not only building a capitol, they were developing a community, a culture, a state where all could live well.

Alexander echoed this expectation in another quote from Aristotle, inscribed above the south entrance: “Political society exists for the sake of noble living.” Gov­ernment has many important functions: ensuring the safety of citizens, dispensing justice, providing necessary services. All these serve a larger purpose; more accurately, they are functions of that larger purpose, which is to make it possible for people to live nobly. “Noble living” suggests that people have the right to expect that life can bring satisfaction, that their opinions are honored, that they have something to contribute, that they will be respected not for what they have or what position they hold but simply because they are human. All the expressions of political society are to serve this purpose: to foster “noble living.”

This understanding places great responsibility on both the state and the citizen. Alexander made this explicit in the words he carved above the north entrance: “The salvation of the state is watchfulness in the citizen.” He knew that there are two tendencies in political society, two great temptations. One is the tendency for the state to accumulate power, to protect the interest of those who hold office. It is a constant temptation—for people and for institutions—to seek to control circumstances and present themselves in the most favorable light. Even the most honorable office holders are not immune from the very human temptation to gloss over uncomfortable truths, to explain away embarrassing events and resist being held accountable. So we need the watchful eye of the public constantly trained on those in government.

The converse is equally important. The citizen’s great temptation is to let it slide. We are inclined to say, “We have elected good people and hired honorable workers. We can trust them. I don’t have to worry. Other people will keep an eye on things.” This approach betrays responsibility just as surely as any wrongdoing among elected or appointed officials. The reason for “watchfulness in the citizen” is not simply to protect individual rights; something even greater is at stake: “the salvation of the state.” The informed participation of all is required not just to ensure efficiency or honesty in government but to save the state itself.

This brings me to the saying that lies at the root of my exegesis of our political “sacred text.” It is the state’s motto, “Equality before the law.” Based on what I think I remember from civics lessons in school, I have understood this to mean that all people are equal in the sight of the law. This is a crucial bit of wisdom. It is abso­lutely fundamental to our political life. If the law gives preference to some in our midst and excludes others, then there is no possibility of a just society.

I have come to see, though, that there is more to it than this. There is another plain meaning of the motto; actually there are two additional meanings of “before.” They have to do with sequence and priority. Applying the former we arrive at the principle that equality precedes the law. The law at its best and highest arises out of the equality of the people. The law—and the state itself—depends on the principle that all are equal. In fact the law grows out of the political process that brings people together on equal footing to decide how to organize and operate our public life together. Equality is inherent, and the law develops from the interactions of people who share that equality.

The other meaning suggests that the motto assumes the priority of equality over the law. In our life together we are to give precedence to the principle of equality, and if the law codifies inequity, then “watchfulness in the citizen” calls us to amend the law to conform to the higher principle. If the law allows, for example, discrimination in employment or housing, resulting in fundamental inequities based on race or creed or national origin or sexual orientation or anything else, then it is the citizens’ responsibility to change the law. I suggest that “equality before the law” means that we as a state acknowledge that there is an authority higher than the written laws of the state.

This presents some challenges, I realize. To my knowledge the motto is not written into the constitution, which is the formal measure for evaluating the laws and practices of the state. And some will raise the question of just whose notion of equality will be the defining interpretation. But the very principle of equality affirms that no one person or group has exclusive or final say. It is when the citizens together become informed and debate and listen, and then act, that we live up to the work we are given to do as a community and further the cause of noble living.

All this also means, of course, that I am not the final interpreter of our sacred text. For one thing, there are other sayings that I have not considered here. And others will read these from a different perspective. I hope the reader will consider this exercise as an invitation—and a challenge—to pick up the task of noticing, understanding and applying the basic assumptions of our political community found in the Capitol, carved in stone.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

Delicious  •   Digg  •   StumbleUpon  •   Propeller  •   Reddit  •   Magnoliacom  •   Newsvine  •   Furl  •   Facebook  •   Google  •   Yahoo  •   Technorati  •   Icerocket