Anti- Intellectualism in American Life

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

This is the provocative title of a very interesting work written by Richard Hofstadter and published in 1962. He describes the work as,

Quote:

"a response to the political and intellectual conditions of the 1950s".

The opening pages set the stage for his basic premise, --

Quote:

"Primarily it was McCarthyism which led to the fear that the critical mind was at a ruinous discount in this country."
" . the (Presidential) campaign of 1952 dramatized the contrast between intellect and philistinism in the opposing candidates. On one side was Adali Stevenson, a politician of uncommon mind and style, whose appeal to intellectuals overshadowed anything in recent history. On the other was Dwight D. Eisenhower, conventional in mind, relatively inarticulate, harnessed to the unpalatable Nixon..."

However, this dark night was not to continue forever as Eisenhower was succeeded by Kennedy and, in Hofstadter's words,

Quote:

"Today (1962) it is possible to look back on the political culture of the 1950s with some detachment. If there was then a tendency to see in McCarthyism, and even in the Eisenhower Administration, some apocalypse for intellectuals in public life, it is no longer possible, now that Washington has again become hospitable to Harvard professors and ex-Rhodes scholars. If there was a suspicion that intellect had become a hopeless obstacle success in politics or administration, it must surely have been put to rest by the new President's (Kennedy) obvious interest in ideas and respect for intellectuals ."

Concrete references to the events of the day always run the risk of looking a bit foolish some decades later. In view of the lamentable record of the Democrat presidents of the 1960s, it is perhaps a bit unfair of me to excerpt these statements as characteristic of Hofstadter's whole work. - as indeed they are not. The book is a serious work that presents a clearly written and engaging description of several important aspects of American culture and political life. It is a good read, and I gladly recommend it to the interested reader. However, the remarks quoted above are indeed characteristic of Hofstadter's basic thesis - namely that America, more than other countries, is in the grip of enduring anti intellectual forces that have their origin in certain aspects of our culture and history. Moreover these words amply illustrate the a priori political bias Hofstadter brings to the discussion (liberals are hospitable to intellectuals, and conservatives are not) and a certain superficial quality to both the logic and the completeness of his argument in support of it.

Hofstadter defines "intellectual" rather narrowly - lawyers, doctors and even physicists and engineers, in the normal practice of their professions, do not qualify, only those who are dedicated to the life of the mind, those who live for ideas as opposed to those who merely use them, qualify as intellectuals in his view. He also defines the chief forces in American life that he finds antagonistic to intellectuals fairly precisely: (1) Christian fundamentalism (as opposed to Puritanism); (2) an excessive regard for the virtues of business and practical accomplishment; and (3) a certain primitivism in American culture that values unlettered individualistic achievement over education and institutions. In short his views are those of Sinclair Lewis who saw the enemies as Elmer Gantry, Babbitt, and the cowboy.

So far this is a workable start, however in his subsequent argument he strays rather far from these definitions - soon any Liberal (in the American political use of the word) is an intellectual and any conservative, or Christian is an anti intellectual (except perhaps the now departed early Puritans who founded Harvard college.)

I also fault Hofstadter for his failure to address or, in any meaningful way, support the notion, central to his thesis, that there is something distinctly American in anti intellectualism itself. Anyone who has read Thucydides' Peloponnesian War will recognize the descent from wise (intelligent) leadership in both Athens and Sparta as their respective leaders, Pericles and Archidamus finally lost the support of their more emotional and less reflective political opponents who, on both sides, led an avid expansion of an ill-conceived war, fomented by their respective "allies;' and in which they had no real strategic interest, but which finally proved the ruin of both states, and, indeed all of Greece. Shall we accuse the Greeks of "anti-intellectualism"? (After all it was they who bade Socrates take the hemlock, not bible-thumping American businessmen or settlers.) A similar cases could be made for Roman or Spanish, British, German, French, or Russian (even perhaps, gasp, Canadian) anti intellectualism. What makes the American manifestations of these universal human failings any greater or more significant than the others?

On the contrary,, a rather interesting case can be made for the often pernicious effect of self-styled intellectuals, particularly in the political applications of socialist tyranny throughout the twentieth century.

All that said, this is an interesting and engaging read. I undertook it as an inducement to keep Blatham off the cigarettes after his recent experience, but was soon propelled by my own interest and appreciation for the prose and provocative ideas of an interesting commentator. Finally I should note that that there is much I admire and agree with in Hofstadter's descriptions of the origins of American Christian fundamentalism, the cultural regard we have for the unlettered self-reliant individualist, the practical businessman, and the interplay of these factors in our social and political lives. They make for an interesting story of several important and persistent aspects of our culture. However similar stories, different only in the details, could be woven about most cultures.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 7,085 • Replies: 128

No top replies

Well, first Pericles died early in the war. true, what he said about patience, building the Athenian navy and not engaging in far flung conflicts was not heeded, but that was more because of the greed the athenians showed in their adventures in Sicily...Alcibiades was not a democrat in any sense of the word, he was a rank opportunist, who cared about wealth and fame, and athens be damned.

But to the issue of "intellectualism" one admits that such a category is the antithesis of the "Common Man" myth instilled in every youngster across the land, and wielded by every politician who runs against an opponent who is willing to think seriously about issues. americans want answers, even if they are the wrong answers instead of focusing upon the process by which a decision ismade.

Horatio Alger stories did not deal with intellectuals, they dealt with the success of commerce, not the "Inner Life."

Since we are harkening back to the '50s.

Two Cultures (1956)

http://arnoldkling.com/~arnoldsk/aimst5/klingm.html

And it is more true today than ever.

But if we discuss the dearth of the intellectual life and the power in the culture of intellectuals today, I recall that from the perspective of Spengler, we are in decline, and the vitality and genius of the intellectual arose in the blossom of our spring, not the harvest of our autumn.

The efforts of our intellectuals allowed this modern age to come into being. We are as Newton said, standing on the shoulders of those giants who came before us and that we can see a bit farther is because of it.

btw:

I have just finished Thucycides History of the Peloponnesian Wars for about the ninth or tenth time over ther past twenty years, but I do not believe that or any other curiousity makes me an intellectual.

A valuable quote FOR TODAY from Thucydides in reference to the civil war in Corcyra:

"To fit in with the change of events, words, too had to change their usual meanings. What used to be described as a thoughtless act of aggression was now regarded as the courage one would expect to find in a party member; to think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea of moderation was just an attempt to disguise one's unmanly character; ability to understand a question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted fo action. fanataical enthusiasm was the mark of a a real man, and to plot against an enemy behind his back was perfectly legitimate self-defense. anyone who held violent opinions could always be trusted and anyone who objected to them became suspect."

Thucycides History of the Peloponnesian Wars (III, verse 82)

Sounds like the Busheviks and their march to war, and their attempt at character assassination at those like Joe Wilson, Richard Clarke and Paul O'neill who opposed their actions.

0 Replies

and what georgeob is the difference between technician and intellectual?

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

Well, first Pericles died early in the war. true, what he said about patience, building the Athenian navy and not engaging in far flung conflicts was not heeded, but that was more because of the greed the athenians showed in their adventures in Sicily...Alcibiades was not a democrat in any sense of the word, he was a rank opportunist, who cared about wealth and fame, and athens be damned.
.

I have read the Peloponesian War only twice (the first time unwillingly in high school) , so my "intellectual" credentials are evidently much less than yours,

I did not refer to Alcibiades, but rather to Archidamus, king of Sparta when the war broke out. He, like Pericles sought to limit the war and avoid any excessive action that would commit the two to a protracted and unlimited war. Cleon led the anti Periclean faction in Athens and he was as I described. ( I agree, though with your assessment of Alcibiades and am foind of Nicias' unheeded warning that the Athenian fathers should think twice about putting the fortunes of the state in the hands of "a young man in a hurry".)

I'm not much interested in turning this into a pro or anti Bush thread. The questions relate to this quite interesting book, the largely accurate and engaging picture it outlines of key elements of the American culture and the underlying - very flawed in my view - precept on which it is based.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

and what georgeob is the difference between technician and intellectual?

I wouldn't venture a guess, Dys. I'm not too fond of these distinctions, but I have known men, employed as technicians, who, in my view were quite intellectual. I have also known some self-professed intellectuals who couldn't be trusted to do anything without assistance.

I also don't think I would meet Hofstadter's standard for this exaulted state.

0 Replies

I recognize whom to which you referred, if but one mentions Pericles in contrast to his more zealous opponents in Athens and the concommitant decline of Athens for not taking the path of Pericles, one necessarily is required to place this in context and describe the methods of the more vociferious of those intellectual adversaries to the way Pericles thought and to what ends they differed with him and the actions they carried out to the destruction of Athens.

the analogy of the Sicilian campaign of Athens in the 5th century BCE is extraordinarily akin to the Bush administration's adventure in Iraq. uncannily so. the similarities are too great not to mention them, trumped up charges of Greek cities crying for freedom (when they appeared not to be "unfree," compared to what the Athemians had in store of them anyway), both in the same whipping up of public support, but also for the mistakes made by each nation's attempts to fight in a war of aggression masked as one of freeing a people when all it really intended was empire building.

as to the "intellectualism," at the center of the discussion, I think that the article I posted, with its reference to the difference between "technologists and "intellectuals" answers dyslexia's question. it also sets out the argument that the aspect of intellectuals looking to the future to be lived is juxtiposed with the reference in Thucydides viz., to think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward

shows the passionate intensity that brought the country (countries, as I refer to both the US and ancient Athens), and is a cause of the decline of intellectual power in the culture (and lets face it, in human history there is no greater fall in intellectualism than from the heights of the Golden Age of Pericles' Athens, circa 450 BCE.)

this passionate intensity is no differerent than the "Man of Action" found throughout Fascist theory. its corrollary in the market is the buccaneer capitalist, the Gordon Gekko-type for whom quick action is paramount while there is money to be made and who has no time for the cogitation of intellectuals who attempt to understand the affects of potential actions, the future, in this the reference to Alcibiades in the political sphere is apropos.

as to who is an intellectual?

try this measurement... paper, scissors, rocks..... someone will always be called an intellectual by someone else, while at the same time call someone else one.

and if you can make sense of my last sentence, then truely, you are an intellectual.

0 Replies

mark

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

.

the analogy of the Sicilian campaign of Athens in the 5th century BCE is extraordinarily akin to the Bush administration's adventure in Iraq. uncannily so. the similarities are too great not to mention them, trumped up charges of Greek cities crying for freedom (when they appeared not to be "unfree," compared to what the Athemians had in store of them anyway), both in the same whipping up of public support, but also for the mistakes made by each nation's attempts to fight in a war of aggression masked as one of freeing a people when all it really intended was empire building..

Nonsense. The relative scale of these two conflicts, as they relate to the nations in question, is so different as to make your proposition absurd. The Peloponesian war could perhaps be seen as analogous to a war between the United States & its allies and the Soviet Empire after several decades of Cold War or uneasy peace (in the case of Greece) - had such a war occurred. Both were/would have been fights that threatened the political and physical destruction of the participants and the future of the civilization on which they were based. These factors are most certainly not true of the Afghanistan and Iraqi interventions. Moreover the historical results of the latter cannot yet be assessed - and there is every likelihood that they will be found to beneficially affect the historical trajectory of that very troubled part of the world.

The empire building to which you refer was started in Athens under Pericles, who pursued a wise strategy of moderation, focusing on the essential factors, while gradually transforming an alliance into an empire. Those who followed him merely pursued unwise, ill-conceived strategies likely driven by emotional rhetoric and action which led to the subsequent disaster of which the Sicilian campaign was merely the most vivid folly.

I suspect we have exhausted the Greek analogy in this question and perhaps should consider the elements of anti Intellectualism in American Life as Hofstadter saw them and the valitity (or lack thereof) of his proposition that it is a uniquely American phenomenon.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

kuvasz wrote:
.

the analogy of the Sicilian campaign of Athens in the 5th century BCE is extraordinarily akin to the Bush administration's adventure in Iraq. uncannily so. the similarities are too great not to mention them, trumped up charges of Greek cities crying for freedom (when they appeared not to be "unfree," compared to what the Athemians had in store of them anyway), both in the same whipping up of public support, but also for the mistakes made by each nation's attempts to fight in a war of aggression masked as one of freeing a people when all it really intended was empire building..

Nonsense. The relative scale of these two conflicts, as they relate to the nations in question, is so different as to make your proposition absurd. The Peloponesian war could perhaps be seen as analogous to a war between the United States & its allies and the Soviet Empire after several decades of Cold War or uneasy peace (in the case of Greece) - had such a war occurred. Both were/would have been fights that threatened the political and physical destruction of the participants and the future of the civilization on which they were based. These factors are most certainly not true of the Afghanistan and Iraqi interventions. Moreover the historical results of the latter cannot yet be assessed - and there is every likelihood that they will be found to beneficially affect the historical trajectory of that very troubled part of the world.

The empire building to which you refer was started in Athens under Pericles, who pursued a wise strategy of moderation, focusing on the essential factors, while gradually transforming an alliance into an empire. Those who followed him merely pursued unwise, ill-conceived strategies likely driven by emotional rhetoric and action which led to the subsequent disaster of which the Sicilian campaign was merely the most vivid folly.

I suspect we have exhausted the Greek analogy in this question and perhaps should consider the elements of anti Intellectualism in American Life as Hofstadter saw them and the valitity (or lack thereof) of his proposition that it is a uniquely American phenomenon.

your remarks just made my case. the sicilian invasion was not a part of a greater struggle against a deadly enemy. it was a power grab. both then in athens on sicily and here in the US with iraq the same rhetoric and disengenuous arguments were used, and both show the affect of those invasions is a decline in national power as a result.

as to using the term "intervention," try INVASION. because it is the more proper term. and if you don't think the affects on US world power are without measurable decline. i suggest you are wrong. the influence of the US and its ability to project global non-military influence is on the decline precisely because of the iraq invasion. the moral authority the US has wielded since 1945 is virtually extinguished now as a result of going to war without the support of our major allies (and at least athens had their allies on-board with invading sicily). mixing in as you have afghanistan and iraq as if they are equivalent in the use of military force is not valid either. the former was a repsone to 911, the latter was plain, pure adventurism for economic empire building in the middle east.

0 Replies

George wrote-

Quote:

. What makes the American manifestations of these universal human failings any greater or more significant than the others?

Two things.They are here and now and you are the only superpower.That's why nobody cares what Easter Islanders thought.

I don't think Hofstadter meant his stuff to be taken in so black and white a manner.I think he was speaking of shifts in emphasis.Europeans do seem to value intellectualism more that Americans or Australians or Canadians.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

... the influence of the US and its ability to project global non-military influence is on the decline precisely because of the iraq invasion. the moral authority the US has wielded since 1945 is virtually extinguished now as a result of going to war without the support of our major allies (and at least athens had their allies on-board with invading sicily). mixing in as you have afghanistan and iraq as if they are equivalent in the use of military force is not valid either. the former was a repsone to 911, the latter was plain, pure adventurism for economic empire building in the middle east.

I believe your interpretation of these issues is seriously flawed. However, there are several other threads dedicated to this subject .... indeed, ad nauseum. Why not save this for one of them?

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

George wrote-

Quote:
. What makes the American manifestations of these universal human failings any greater or more significant than the others?

Two things.They are here and now and you are the only superpower.That's why nobody cares what Easter Islanders thought.

I find this a very tiresome rationalization for the unbalanced and out-of-context criticism of this country offered in such great quantities by many foreigners. That we currently wield relatively great power does not giive others any special rights to intrude in our affairs. Moreover this condition, in the natural course of events, will not last long. Other rivals are already springing up. Perhaps you should consider the alternatives in greater depth.

Quote:

I don't think Hofstadter meant his stuff to be taken in so black and white a manner.I think he was speaking of shifts in emphasis.Europeans do seem to value intellectualism more that Americans or Australians or Canadians.

I don't know his intent. I do know that he wrote that the phenomenon is not exclusive to America, but far more pronounced here than other places, presumably because of the various reasons he offered for it. I believe his descriptions of the cultural foundations of what he calls anti-intellectualism are both interesting and largely correct. However I don't accept his rather sweeping generalizations about it or his persistent, but unproven (or even defended) implications that the phenomenon is in any way unique to American or to political conservatives - two propositions that he does not undertake to prove or support but which are woven into the fabric of his book.

There are differences between Europeans and 'Americans, Australians, and Canadians', but I don't think that intellectual achievement is one of them. (Certainly there is no evidence to support this remarkable suggestion.) The latter are in the main descended from Europeans who left Europe, either to escape European history or in chains in prision ships. No surprise that they created cultures with values differently tuned than those among the Europeans who stayed behind. When one considers the harm inflicted upon themselves and the world by Europeans during the 17th through 20th centuries, it is difficult to imagine that there is a basis for any European condescension.

0 Replies

George wrote,seemingly piqued,

Quote:

That we currently wield relatively great power does not give others any special rights to intrude in our affairs.

Who said "intrude".I never even alluded to such a crazy idea.All I said is that what you do in America is "significant" to the rest of us.And then some.

George went on,still thrumming with slight indignation-

Quote:

However I don't accept his rather sweeping generalizations about it or his persistent, but unproven (or even defended) implications that the phenomenon is in any way unique to American or to political conservatives

.

Obviously.It is a scale thing.Unique is a word one can play around with rhetorically as long as one wishes.Ovid would probably have agreed to the idea,and Jesus too,that anti-intellectualism wasn't unique to the particular land mass under discussion.It is asking too much of Mr Hofstadter to require him to prove the "uniqueness" of American anti-intellectualism.

George climaxed with-
When one considers the harm inflicted upon themselves and the world by Europeans during the 17th through 20th centuries, it is difficult to imagine that there is a basis for any European condescension.[/quote]

That masquerades as an assertion based on the idea that human beings and real estate are more valuable than creation out of chaos which not everyone would agree with.George is obviously a caring person.A spokesperson for the bourgeoisie.
And nothing wrong with that.

But on his journey George did admit that

Quote:

I don't know his intent.

.

Now that is intellectual.

I once read that Freud wrote a book and they couldn't decide whether it was a psychoanalytical instruction manual or a novel.If we supposed that Hofstadter had written a novel then we might think that his choice of subject was simply a convenient coat hanger and that his real intent was to provide a motive and a possible method of becoming an intellectual,by his definitions of course.An attempt to show others how his mind worked.How a relativist skeptic saw everything with circumspection and humanity.A style.Some might offer the suggestion that it is grounded in the romanticism of the mid 19th century.Or possibly in admiration of Veblen to whom the wave of a laconic arm,cigarette lightly held between the first two fingers,over the broad mass of humanity was as natural as raising one's right knee to relieve an insistant touch of flatulence.At the same time too.

0 Replies

Well I may well have been piqued, but I certainly was not thrumming - that is a far too British appelation for anything I would do, knowingly or otherwise.

You are correct, you were not "intervening". However I do find the oft- repeated rationalization for what otherwise would be regarded as intrusive criticism, that the speaker is motivated only by a right minded concern for the effects of our actions, given the unrivalled power we exercise - all a bit cloying and offensive. I confess to a certain weariness with a too self-serving rationalization, too often repeated.

I make no assumptions whatever concerning Hofstadter's intent or stylistic strategy. It is not the sort of book I would ordinarily read - I have a (probably excessive) skeptical view of the wisdom and judgements of those who appoint themselves to be the objective judges of contemporary culture or the "scientific" aspects of public life or human behavior. We all have points of view and those who label themselves as above such things in analysis of events so close to themselves excite my deep mistrust. Hofstadter clearly has a political point of view, though he indulges consistently in the conceit that - as a spokesperson for "intellectualism" he has, by definition, risen above it. I find that a bit hard to swallow. Is that what you label as bourgeoisie?

Did you know that Freud collaborated in a book with William Bullitt, a one time notable in the U.S. State Department and a deputy of Woodrow Wilson during the Versailles negotiations, purporting to analyze the infantile fantasies and subconscious motivation of the American president? Perhaps this too was a novel. I am no fan of Wilson, but this sort of thing makes me equally skeptical of self-appointed "intellectuals".

0 Replies

Not having read Hofstadter's book yet, here is something I'm curious about: If Hofstadter defines the term 'intellectual' as narrowly as you say he does, how does he argue that anti-intellectualism is a bad thing? Arguably it's a good thing for the US that those who think for the sake of thinking play a less important role in American life than they play in, say, the life of the French. Hofstadter must have some theory to argue that intellectuals have a very important role to play in the lives of Americans, so important that not letting them play it is clear evidence of anti-intellectualism. Or does he simply take this for granted?

0 Replies

George wrote-

Quote:

You are correct, you were not "intervening". However I do find the oft- repeated rationalization for what otherwise would be regarded as intrusive criticism, that the speaker is motivated only by a right minded concern for the effects of our actions, given the unrivalled power we exercise - all a bit cloying and offensive. I confess to a certain weariness with a too self-serving rationalization, too often repeated.

Well-I think what you do is of great interest to us even though we may not interfere to influence you too much.It is of interest in planning our future policies regarding who to side with or,more realistically,who to drift towards amid the shifting currents of international alliances.The USA is seen by some as a real alternative to the EEC and their numbers wax and wane as you are perceived successful or otherwise and as the EEC is likewise.

If it is recognised that nuclear weapons are now unusable given the interdependence of economic arrangements as they now are and the direction they are likely to continue going in then they are only a counter of very last resort and thus can be ignored for all practical purposes.

I'm not inclined to allow that serious thinkers have the slightest interest in "right minded concerns".If they have it must mark a point of departure of considerable significance.

On this-

Quote:

Hofstadter clearly has a political point of view, though he indulges consistently in the conceit that - as a spokesperson for "intellectualism" he has, by definition, risen above it. I find that a bit hard to swallow. Is that what you label as bourgeoisie?

I would say that,if what is said there is true,Hofstadter would himself agree that it is bourgeois.Intellectuals don't have any sorts of points of view in the ideal manifestations which places them above the fray,often much to their dismay.It is not necessarily a superior position and it renders personal relationships a trifle difficult.One would need to have seen the man in his daily rounds to pass judgement on the extent of his bourgeois nature although even then one would have to allow that he may simply be indulging Mrs Hofstadter's exotic tastes for dark,ulterior motives which any intellectual can easily justify, I think.

I took a brief glimpse into the Freud/Bullitt thing when it came up in a previous conversation between us.I would agree that suspicions in such cases are quite in order.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Not having read Hofstadter's book yet, here is something I'm curious about: If Hofstadter defines the term 'intellectual' as narrowly as you say he does, how does he argue that anti-intellectualism is a bad thing? Arguably it's a good thing for the US that those who think for the sake of thinking play a less important role in American life than they play in, say, the life of the French. Hofstadter must have some theory to argue that intellectuals have a very important role to play in the lives of Americans, so important that not letting them play it is clear evidence of anti-intellectualism. Or does he simply take this for granted?

Very interesting question, Thomas -and quite insightful of you to have detected it from only my bare outline. I considered adding this explicitly to my objections to the argument he offered, but held off to avoid appearing too bombastic or argumentative (even I have certain limits.).

The opening pages of the work set the context in which he places his descriptions of certain American cultural phenomena. It is there that he offers the definition I gave and even directly offers the proposition that the failure to employ 'intellectuals' in government is itself evidence of deep-seated "anti-intellectualism". Apart from the historical absurdity of this conjunction, the proposition is a bit petty and mean-spirited. This is the basis for the very partisan overtones that cloud an otherwise very interesting piece of scholarship and which makes it so attractive to some in partisan dispute. The irony of course is that Hofstadter himself gives the lie to his core argument.

However the main body of the work is indeed a well written and engaging description of certain important aspects of American culture. Even here' however' the tale was better told about three decades earlier by the American novelist Sinclair Lewis.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Well-I think what you do is of great interest to us even though we may not interfere to influence you too much.It is of interest in planning our future policies regarding who to side with or,more realistically,who to drift towards amid the shifting currents of international alliances.The USA is seen by some as a real alternative to the EEC and their numbers wax and wane as you are perceived successful or otherwise and as the EEC is likewise.

If it is recognised that nuclear weapons are now unusable given the interdependence of economic arrangements as they now are and the direction they are likely to continue going in then they are only a counter of very last resort and thus can be ignored for all practical purposes.

I don't think the world has seen the end of major wars. History offers far too many examples of senseless major conflict for me to be persuaded that international commercial entanglements will either prevent war or preclude the use of available weapons when the chips are down. Consider WWI.

I also believe that the view that the U.S. and the EU/ECC are necessarily mutually antagonistic is an unfortunate consequence of trasitional thinking on these matters. It does offen appear top be working out that way, but I regard that as mostly the result of a peculiar French neurosis. I think the U.S. has tried fairly consistently to be a friend to the evolving EU.

Perhaps the above two propositions are a bit contradictory. :wink:

I do recognize the dilemma facing the UK in the post empire period. My advice would be to stick to a policy that has worked well since the 17th century/

0 Replies

It is a fair while since I read H and although it is here by my side I don't propose to repeat the exercise and am simply using it to check certain things I'm referencing from the index.I am engaged in reading how Flaubert handled Louise Colet who was probably more than a match for most of us and that is much more in my line of social science.

I think I had the impression that H went all round the houses to get over what I already knew and that is that the non-intellectual fears the intellectual as if he were the very devil himself.In France,where they are more familiar with the devil than are innocent American descendents of pilgrims,such things are all in a day's work and thus whatever advantages intellectuals bring can be enjoyed more easily.Especially during curfews.

As Flaubert (aged 25) told Louise (aged 35) as he moved in for the kill-Adultery was glorious,it was a revolt against the most bourgeois and detestable of institutions.Speaking to Louise (who was a raver by all accounts and at her peak) he told her of a lady he saw breast feeding when he was 15 in these terms-when his passion for her had been at its height,the word "adultery" had seemed to him the most beautiful of human words,vaguely enveloped with an exquisite sweetness,fragrant with a peculiar magic,full of a supreme poetry compounded of voluptuousness and blasphemy and that that was the feeling which was surging through his throbbing veins,he declared,staring directly at her with burning eyes.

So you see,it's a matter of degree.I think Gustave would have considered Hoffie petite bourgeois of the most detestable sort.But he does tell some interesting anecdotes and by selective use of quotations brings a degree of discredit on creationism by associating it with the most opportunistic charlatans who presumably could no longer sell snake oil.In fact it is possible,using other quotations,to associate creationism with the highest flights of sublimity the human mind has proved capable of.

0 Replies

Anti- Intellectualism in American Life

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know