Defying Gravity

Should we do it?

I assume you’ve heard the song “Defying Gravity” from the musical “Wicked”. It happens to be one of my favorite musical songs. And I want to examine if that is a good thing or a bad thing.

The song definitely has themes of rising above conventionality and the status quo in order to achieve something greater. I resonate with that so much. I’ve never fit in. Often thought differently from the crowd, looked differently from the crowd, listened to different music, etc. And even though I am different from most of the rest of the world by taking my Catholic faith seriously, I rarely find a perfect fit within the various subcultures in the Church today. I am one who conceives of grand visions and works to bring them about, but am simultaneously reflective and contemplative and not prone to fully adapt the so-called “hustle” culture.

Indeed, daring to do something different can sometimes result in astonishing innovations and experiences. Inventors, thinkers, they all broke new ground. In a world where there is great pressure to conform and anxiety about adhering to existing customs and procedures, these odd people can bring a breath of fresh air to our culture. So in that manner, the song is good.

Now for the potential dangers with this song.

There is a Nietzschen side to this song. Rising above the crowd and making up your own values in order to serve yourself. Throwing off everything about society. Has a diabolic ring to it. Because when you indiscriminately throw off every social norm and moral, when you burn everything to the ground, very often you find there many poisonous creatures. The revolutionary, in fact, has to navigate the jungle of the Amazon or the wilderness of Australia, where everything wants to kill you.

The proper way to move forward for those who are visionaries and innovators is to determine what is good about existing culture and what needs to be improved. St. John Bosco, for example, upheld the existing Catholic faith, but created a new way to impart it to young boys who were abused and neglected by society. He did not try to create a new set of values for himself, like Nietzsche, but rather used the old in a new way.

I err on the side of innovative visionary. I tend to look to the future and see what new worlds we can create. But simultaneously, I look to the past for fuel and fertile soil in which to build the new. And indeed, maybe that was Elphaba’s critical error. She abandoned Oz completely, separating herself from even what was good about it (even if there was very little that was good there).

Per the side of the Munchkins in Oz, though, they seem to be only concerned with a sort of primitive understanding of the world. Go to school, party, revere the Wizard, etc. In the musical, this primitive understanding is portrayed as ignorant and superficial. And maybe they are, in fact, ignorant. But a word of caution here. “Ignorant” is not the same as “worthless”. I know my secular evolutionary-minded friends may argue that ignorant people are worthless, but I think that deep down they know the truth that all human beings are of great value. But there is something else to consider. Those who are ignorant should acknowledge that they are ignorant, and not pretend to be otherwise. The Munchkins in “Wicked”? I’m not sure they do that. And I’m not sure most people today do that. I’m not sure I do that.

I’m honestly not sure what the answer is to the conflict between the innovative visionary and the status-quo loving commoner, except maybe the two should strive to understand each other. The visionary can respect the past while the commoner can understand the need for prudent change. As for Elphaba, maybe instead of creating her own world for her own self she could have tried to serve Oz in a unique way.

Which one are you? Visionary or Commoner?