Jacques Barzun passed away yesterday at the age of 104. Amazing. I'd be happy to make it to 80-85---though this election isn't helping my health. I digress.
My writings on the history of the great books idea and Mortimer J. Adler have brought me into frequent contact with Barzun. Adler is mentioned in passing in the NYT obit, but they were long-time friends. They became closer during the 1970s and 1980s in relation to the Paideia Project. Here's how Adler summarized their common interests (bolds mine): "While we have had our philosophical differences over the years, some of which still persist, they have always been overcome by the deep bonds of intellectual sympathy that unite us in our judgments about the sorry state of education and of culture in the United States, about the relation of the sciences to the humanities, and about one or another academic fad that gains attention and is in vogue for a short time." [from Adler's Philosopher at Large (1977), p. 67]
Apart from Adler, I've written on Barzun at USIH on three prior occasions. This most recent was in April of 2009 when I wrote a long, retrospective review essay and meditation on The House of Intellect (entire essay here). My opening paragraph was terrible, but I think there are points to recommend in the rest of the piece. Here's an extended passage that reveals my thesis (buried, sadly, fourteen paragraphs down---and you'll have to go to the long essay to get the notes):
----------------------------------------------------------
Understanding Barzun’s criticisms, terminology, paradoxes, and proposed reconciliation with regard to his own times, we can now ask whether his criticisms resonate today. I think the answer is yes. Indeed, I find the relevance of his warnings shocking considering that House of Intellect was published 50 years ago. The development of the Culture Wars over the last thirty years has even made some his complaints more acute. Comparing Barzun’s themes, point by point, makes it seem as if he predicted our Culture Wars---even if we have added new twists.
Just as Barzun included higher education as an enemy of the intellect, it remains so---and has become somewhat worse today. Since 1959, with the results of general cultural changes and policy incentives, the U.S. ranks behind only Canada, Japan, and New Zealand for the percentage of its adults (ages 25-64) holding an associate’s degree or higher.[7] Statistically speaking, then, the U.S. is not a relative disparager of the mind. Yet I agree with Barzun that credentialism, job hunting, and status-striving still dominate the undergraduate mind. We appear to have fetished education at the expense of our collective intellectual life. Our system rewards point gathering rather than intellectual development. And now the adjunct system rewards instructors who please students rather than those teachers who challenge a student’s stock notions. Specialization still hampers the academy in that professors are primarily rewarded for research rather than teaching, and young instructors are better subject technicians (through no fault of their own) than classroom leaders who foster the intellect.
The increased numbers of students who are thankfully able to take advantage of higher education has unfortunately created more pseudo-intellectualism than a substantial quantitative increase in ability to reason. While I believe that Jacoby wrongfully focused on political leadership, conservatism, and pedantic examples in Age of American Unreason, politics is nevertheless an area that feels positively unaffected by our more educated electorate.[8] Ideology, or what Barzun called “systems,” seems to rule elections no matter whether the winner is on the left or right. Our stock notions prevail. Barzun observed:
With or without logic, ideas form systems, and systems absorb lives. A believer in a system, or as we say today, an ideology, supports it with all his gregarious instincts---he is no longer alone in his struggle against the world; with his sense of liberation from uncertainty---he has found answers to many perplexing questions; with his pride of learning---the ‘science’ he has mastered is difficult; with his moral conceit---the idea or cause he has adopted makes him superior to those who pursue only crass advantage. (p. 149-50)
Sound familiar? Does this characterize someone you know---that crazy aunt, uncle, or old college friend who can’t stop sending you political conspiracy e-mails? Does it describe your own cultural or political enemies? Can we admit that it might even characterize us at some unflattering point our lives?
...[And here was my conclusion] ...
Returning firmly to House of Intellect, it is clear that Barzun was at the time no strong believer in democracy---or at least in the vitality of the life of the mind in a democracy. To me this contrasts sharply with the understanding I gained of him in another context. In the late 1970s and in the 1980s, Barzun became involved in something called the Paideia Project.”[14] That endeavor was headed by Mortimer J. Adler and focused on education reform with a great books component. Barzun was an enthusiastic participant in that very radical and democratic school reform program. A decided lack of cynicism about the prospects of students in a democracy was an essential part the Paideia Project. It contrasts sharply with Barzun’s pessimism about the education establishment’s ability to foster the intellect that we see in House of Intellect. People change. But I think his involvement with Paideia points to the importance Barzun put on combating anti-intellectualism and finding a proper role for the intellect in democratic culture.
----------------------------------------------------------
That's a taste of my essay. Explore the rest at your peril. Whatever you think of Barzun's life and other writings, I found The House of Intellect a compelling read in light of the Culture Wars that followed. - TL
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Jacques Barzun. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Jacques Barzun. Tampilkan semua postingan
Jumat, 26 Oktober 2012
Kamis, 11 November 2010
Jacques Barzun On Writing
Two months ago Jacques Barzun---former Columbia University professor, historian of culture and ideas, and recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom (in 2003, with Julia Child among others)---sat for an interview to discuss the art of writing.*
I offer this for your consumption because I profited much, in theory at least, from Barzun's challenging 1975 book on the craft of writing titled Simple and Direct: A Rhetoric for Writers.** I say "in theory" because he held forth ideals with which I still struggle. As a bonus, at the 45:00 minute mark in the interview Barzun also discusses why he chose cultural and intellectual history at the start of his career. Here's the interview via Vimeo:
* The conversation was led by Jack Jackson at the SoL (Source of Light) Center, University Presbyterian Church, San Antonio, TX.
** Surprisingly, two paperback versions of Simple and Direct seem to be in print with two publishing houses: (1) One with University of Chicago Press, revised in 1985, and (2) another in print with Harper Collins's Harper Perennial imprint. Here's the TOC from the Chicago Press version: ...
---------------------------------------------------
- Preface to the Revised Edition
- Preface
- Introduction
I. Diction, or Which Words to Use
Time Out for Good Reading I
"Working and Thinking on the Waterfront"
II. Linking, or What to Put Next
Time Out for Good Reading II
"Aristotle on Detective Fiction"
III. Tone and Tune, or What Impression Will It Make?
Time Out for Good Reading III
"Language Defined"
IV. Meaning, or What Do I Want to Say?
Time Out for Good Reading IV
"Hints for Sawing"
V. Composition, or How Does It Hang Together?
Time Out for Good Reading V
"The Law as Guarantee of Free Speech"
VI. Revision, or What Have I Actually Said?
Time Out for Good Reading VI
"Two Gifted Amateurs"
VII. To Use or Not to Use
Time Out for Good Reading VII
"How to Be Respected at an Inn, Hotel or Pub"
VIII. Take a Little Thought
Time Out for Good Reading VIII
"Writing Less—and Better?"
- Exercises
- Hints Toward Improving Sentences Quoted
- Index of Words, Topics, and Authors
---------------------------------------------------
PS: I suppose this post could be considered a sort of addenda to Scott McLemee's useful reflections yesterday at InsideHigherEd on the 2003 book, Critical Intellectuals on Writing (SUNY Press). - TL
I offer this for your consumption because I profited much, in theory at least, from Barzun's challenging 1975 book on the craft of writing titled Simple and Direct: A Rhetoric for Writers.** I say "in theory" because he held forth ideals with which I still struggle. As a bonus, at the 45:00 minute mark in the interview Barzun also discusses why he chose cultural and intellectual history at the start of his career. Here's the interview via Vimeo:
* The conversation was led by Jack Jackson at the SoL (Source of Light) Center, University Presbyterian Church, San Antonio, TX.
** Surprisingly, two paperback versions of Simple and Direct seem to be in print with two publishing houses: (1) One with University of Chicago Press, revised in 1985, and (2) another in print with Harper Collins's Harper Perennial imprint. Here's the TOC from the Chicago Press version: ...
---------------------------------------------------
- Preface to the Revised Edition
- Preface
- Introduction
I. Diction, or Which Words to Use
Time Out for Good Reading I
"Working and Thinking on the Waterfront"
II. Linking, or What to Put Next
Time Out for Good Reading II
"Aristotle on Detective Fiction"
III. Tone and Tune, or What Impression Will It Make?
Time Out for Good Reading III
"Language Defined"
IV. Meaning, or What Do I Want to Say?
Time Out for Good Reading IV
"Hints for Sawing"
V. Composition, or How Does It Hang Together?
Time Out for Good Reading V
"The Law as Guarantee of Free Speech"
VI. Revision, or What Have I Actually Said?
Time Out for Good Reading VI
"Two Gifted Amateurs"
VII. To Use or Not to Use
Time Out for Good Reading VII
"How to Be Respected at an Inn, Hotel or Pub"
VIII. Take a Little Thought
Time Out for Good Reading VIII
"Writing Less—and Better?"
- Exercises
- Hints Toward Improving Sentences Quoted
- Index of Words, Topics, and Authors
---------------------------------------------------
PS: I suppose this post could be considered a sort of addenda to Scott McLemee's useful reflections yesterday at InsideHigherEd on the 2003 book, Critical Intellectuals on Writing (SUNY Press). - TL
Jacques Barzun On Writing
Two months ago Jacques Barzun---former Columbia University professor, historian of culture and ideas, and recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom (in 2003, with Julia Child among others)---sat for an interview to discuss the art of writing.*
I offer this for your consumption because I profited much, in theory at least, from Barzun's challenging 1975 book on the craft of writing titled Simple and Direct: A Rhetoric for Writers.** I say "in theory" because he held forth ideals with which I still struggle. As a bonus, at the 45:00 minute mark in the interview Barzun also discusses why he chose cultural and intellectual history at the start of his career. Here's the interview via Vimeo:
* The conversation was led by Jack Jackson at the SoL (Source of Light) Center, University Presbyterian Church, San Antonio, TX.
** Surprisingly, two paperback versions of Simple and Direct seem to be in print with two publishing houses: (1) One with University of Chicago Press, revised in 1985, and (2) another in print with Harper Collins's Harper Perennial imprint. Here's the TOC from the Chicago Press version: ...
---------------------------------------------------
- Preface to the Revised Edition
- Preface
- Introduction
I. Diction, or Which Words to Use
Time Out for Good Reading I
"Working and Thinking on the Waterfront"
II. Linking, or What to Put Next
Time Out for Good Reading II
"Aristotle on Detective Fiction"
III. Tone and Tune, or What Impression Will It Make?
Time Out for Good Reading III
"Language Defined"
IV. Meaning, or What Do I Want to Say?
Time Out for Good Reading IV
"Hints for Sawing"
V. Composition, or How Does It Hang Together?
Time Out for Good Reading V
"The Law as Guarantee of Free Speech"
VI. Revision, or What Have I Actually Said?
Time Out for Good Reading VI
"Two Gifted Amateurs"
VII. To Use or Not to Use
Time Out for Good Reading VII
"How to Be Respected at an Inn, Hotel or Pub"
VIII. Take a Little Thought
Time Out for Good Reading VIII
"Writing Less—and Better?"
- Exercises
- Hints Toward Improving Sentences Quoted
- Index of Words, Topics, and Authors
---------------------------------------------------
PS: I suppose this post could be considered a sort of addenda to Scott McLemee's useful reflections yesterday at InsideHigherEd on the 2003 book, Critical Intellectuals on Writing (SUNY Press). - TL
I offer this for your consumption because I profited much, in theory at least, from Barzun's challenging 1975 book on the craft of writing titled Simple and Direct: A Rhetoric for Writers.** I say "in theory" because he held forth ideals with which I still struggle. As a bonus, at the 45:00 minute mark in the interview Barzun also discusses why he chose cultural and intellectual history at the start of his career. Here's the interview via Vimeo:
* The conversation was led by Jack Jackson at the SoL (Source of Light) Center, University Presbyterian Church, San Antonio, TX.
** Surprisingly, two paperback versions of Simple and Direct seem to be in print with two publishing houses: (1) One with University of Chicago Press, revised in 1985, and (2) another in print with Harper Collins's Harper Perennial imprint. Here's the TOC from the Chicago Press version: ...
---------------------------------------------------
- Preface to the Revised Edition
- Preface
- Introduction
I. Diction, or Which Words to Use
Time Out for Good Reading I
"Working and Thinking on the Waterfront"
II. Linking, or What to Put Next
Time Out for Good Reading II
"Aristotle on Detective Fiction"
III. Tone and Tune, or What Impression Will It Make?
Time Out for Good Reading III
"Language Defined"
IV. Meaning, or What Do I Want to Say?
Time Out for Good Reading IV
"Hints for Sawing"
V. Composition, or How Does It Hang Together?
Time Out for Good Reading V
"The Law as Guarantee of Free Speech"
VI. Revision, or What Have I Actually Said?
Time Out for Good Reading VI
"Two Gifted Amateurs"
VII. To Use or Not to Use
Time Out for Good Reading VII
"How to Be Respected at an Inn, Hotel or Pub"
VIII. Take a Little Thought
Time Out for Good Reading VIII
"Writing Less—and Better?"
- Exercises
- Hints Toward Improving Sentences Quoted
- Index of Words, Topics, and Authors
---------------------------------------------------
PS: I suppose this post could be considered a sort of addenda to Scott McLemee's useful reflections yesterday at InsideHigherEd on the 2003 book, Critical Intellectuals on Writing (SUNY Press). - TL
Jumat, 15 Mei 2009
Tim's Light Reading (5/15/09)
1. Writing Tips from Scott Eric Kaufman---How many times do professed intellectual historians direct your attention to graphics that involve a hamburger? For the record, I generally agree with Ahistoricality when he/she comments that, with regard to history, the evidence needs to outweigh the analysis. Furthermore, as a adopted Chicagoan, my evidential burger condiments generally exclude ketchup (and I do like dijon).
2. Issues in Borderline Slavery Denial at Civil War Memory---I concede that my comments on this post are akin to killing a fly with a hammer: I propose a theoretical solution that overreaches the current problem. But I do genuinely wonder if memories of the American Civil War are, at times, being pushed by extreme revisionists into a denial of slavery. Is there a need for some kind of mild law against denying our own holocaust?
3. Is David Brooks Avoiding Politics by Rethinking the Intellectual Life? (here and here)---Mr. Brooks is known, among some, for his intelligent and reasonably moderate conservatism. His commentary on PBS last fall, during the presidential campaign party conventions, compelled a grudging admiration for his sense of perspective. But I wonder, in light of the current political scene, if he is sort of retreating into the intellectual life? Don't get me wrong, I don't mind. I'm finding the intellectual Brooks more interesting than the political one. And perhaps I don't know his biography well enough; he may have been this way all along?
But on the links provided, the first, on the notion of genius, contains important elements of consideration for all aspiring and working intellectual historians. In particular I appreciated Brooks' citation of Daniel Coyle's The Talent Code and Geoff Colvin's Talent Is Overrated. Both works correspond with an ongoing theory I've held about how one becomes an intellectual with regard to whatever topic is at hand (assuming that multiple intelligences theories hold): superior ability doesn't always manifest itself clearly for evaluators of youth talent, but drive and discipline that correspond with an strong internal vision can sometimes be detected, and would be equally valuable to evaluators. With that, taking a more working, or developmental, view of "genius" would have no small consequences for how history departments, for instance, ought to select applicants. And since the brightest of our faculties in history are encouraged, for the most part, to develop their own genius to its fullest (i.e. research and publish) rather than train those under them, it seems likely that next generation of history "geniuses" is likely to come from hands-on, teaching-type doctoral departments. In other words, those that don't overly emphasize research.
The second Brooks piece looks at the Harvard College "Grant Study." Here he is underscoring Joshua Wolf Shank's June 2009 Atlantic article. That piece is about the pursuit and causes of happiness, but it's also an object lesson in the caprices of intelligence. It highlights something emphasized by Barzun in House of Intellect: namely, that pursuing the intellectual life has only a moderate correlation with intelligence (circling back to the Coyle/Colvin thesis above, reflecting a consistent thread in Brooks' reading list). And of course all historians should keep these two conclusions from Brooks in mind:
a. "It is as if we all contain a multitude of characters and patterns of behavior, and these characters and patterns are bidden by cues we don’t even hear."
b. "There is a complexity to human affairs before which science and analysis simply stands mute."
- TL
2. Issues in Borderline Slavery Denial at Civil War Memory---I concede that my comments on this post are akin to killing a fly with a hammer: I propose a theoretical solution that overreaches the current problem. But I do genuinely wonder if memories of the American Civil War are, at times, being pushed by extreme revisionists into a denial of slavery. Is there a need for some kind of mild law against denying our own holocaust?
3. Is David Brooks Avoiding Politics by Rethinking the Intellectual Life? (here and here)---Mr. Brooks is known, among some, for his intelligent and reasonably moderate conservatism. His commentary on PBS last fall, during the presidential campaign party conventions, compelled a grudging admiration for his sense of perspective. But I wonder, in light of the current political scene, if he is sort of retreating into the intellectual life? Don't get me wrong, I don't mind. I'm finding the intellectual Brooks more interesting than the political one. And perhaps I don't know his biography well enough; he may have been this way all along?
But on the links provided, the first, on the notion of genius, contains important elements of consideration for all aspiring and working intellectual historians. In particular I appreciated Brooks' citation of Daniel Coyle's The Talent Code and Geoff Colvin's Talent Is Overrated. Both works correspond with an ongoing theory I've held about how one becomes an intellectual with regard to whatever topic is at hand (assuming that multiple intelligences theories hold): superior ability doesn't always manifest itself clearly for evaluators of youth talent, but drive and discipline that correspond with an strong internal vision can sometimes be detected, and would be equally valuable to evaluators. With that, taking a more working, or developmental, view of "genius" would have no small consequences for how history departments, for instance, ought to select applicants. And since the brightest of our faculties in history are encouraged, for the most part, to develop their own genius to its fullest (i.e. research and publish) rather than train those under them, it seems likely that next generation of history "geniuses" is likely to come from hands-on, teaching-type doctoral departments. In other words, those that don't overly emphasize research.
The second Brooks piece looks at the Harvard College "Grant Study." Here he is underscoring Joshua Wolf Shank's June 2009 Atlantic article. That piece is about the pursuit and causes of happiness, but it's also an object lesson in the caprices of intelligence. It highlights something emphasized by Barzun in House of Intellect: namely, that pursuing the intellectual life has only a moderate correlation with intelligence (circling back to the Coyle/Colvin thesis above, reflecting a consistent thread in Brooks' reading list). And of course all historians should keep these two conclusions from Brooks in mind:
a. "It is as if we all contain a multitude of characters and patterns of behavior, and these characters and patterns are bidden by cues we don’t even hear."
b. "There is a complexity to human affairs before which science and analysis simply stands mute."
- TL
Tim's Light Reading (5/15/09)
1. Writing Tips from Scott Eric Kaufman---How many times do professed intellectual historians direct your attention to graphics that involve a hamburger? For the record, I generally agree with Ahistoricality when he/she comments that, with regard to history, the evidence needs to outweigh the analysis. Furthermore, as a adopted Chicagoan, my evidential burger condiments generally exclude ketchup (and I do like dijon).
2. Issues in Borderline Slavery Denial at Civil War Memory---I concede that my comments on this post are akin to killing a fly with a hammer: I propose a theoretical solution that overreaches the current problem. But I do genuinely wonder if memories of the American Civil War are, at times, being pushed by extreme revisionists into a denial of slavery. Is there a need for some kind of mild law against denying our own holocaust?
3. Is David Brooks Avoiding Politics by Rethinking the Intellectual Life? (here and here)---Mr. Brooks is known, among some, for his intelligent and reasonably moderate conservatism. His commentary on PBS last fall, during the presidential campaign party conventions, compelled a grudging admiration for his sense of perspective. But I wonder, in light of the current political scene, if he is sort of retreating into the intellectual life? Don't get me wrong, I don't mind. I'm finding the intellectual Brooks more interesting than the political one. And perhaps I don't know his biography well enough; he may have been this way all along?
But on the links provided, the first, on the notion of genius, contains important elements of consideration for all aspiring and working intellectual historians. In particular I appreciated Brooks' citation of Daniel Coyle's The Talent Code and Geoff Colvin's Talent Is Overrated. Both works correspond with an ongoing theory I've held about how one becomes an intellectual with regard to whatever topic is at hand (assuming that multiple intelligences theories hold): superior ability doesn't always manifest itself clearly for evaluators of youth talent, but drive and discipline that correspond with an strong internal vision can sometimes be detected, and would be equally valuable to evaluators. With that, taking a more working, or developmental, view of "genius" would have no small consequences for how history departments, for instance, ought to select applicants. And since the brightest of our faculties in history are encouraged, for the most part, to develop their own genius to its fullest (i.e. research and publish) rather than train those under them, it seems likely that next generation of history "geniuses" is likely to come from hands-on, teaching-type doctoral departments. In other words, those that don't overly emphasize research.
The second Brooks piece looks at the Harvard College "Grant Study." Here he is underscoring Joshua Wolf Shank's June 2009 Atlantic article. That piece is about the pursuit and causes of happiness, but it's also an object lesson in the caprices of intelligence. It highlights something emphasized by Barzun in House of Intellect: namely, that pursuing the intellectual life has only a moderate correlation with intelligence (circling back to the Coyle/Colvin thesis above, reflecting a consistent thread in Brooks' reading list). And of course all historians should keep these two conclusions from Brooks in mind:
a. "It is as if we all contain a multitude of characters and patterns of behavior, and these characters and patterns are bidden by cues we don’t even hear."
b. "There is a complexity to human affairs before which science and analysis simply stands mute."
- TL
2. Issues in Borderline Slavery Denial at Civil War Memory---I concede that my comments on this post are akin to killing a fly with a hammer: I propose a theoretical solution that overreaches the current problem. But I do genuinely wonder if memories of the American Civil War are, at times, being pushed by extreme revisionists into a denial of slavery. Is there a need for some kind of mild law against denying our own holocaust?
3. Is David Brooks Avoiding Politics by Rethinking the Intellectual Life? (here and here)---Mr. Brooks is known, among some, for his intelligent and reasonably moderate conservatism. His commentary on PBS last fall, during the presidential campaign party conventions, compelled a grudging admiration for his sense of perspective. But I wonder, in light of the current political scene, if he is sort of retreating into the intellectual life? Don't get me wrong, I don't mind. I'm finding the intellectual Brooks more interesting than the political one. And perhaps I don't know his biography well enough; he may have been this way all along?
But on the links provided, the first, on the notion of genius, contains important elements of consideration for all aspiring and working intellectual historians. In particular I appreciated Brooks' citation of Daniel Coyle's The Talent Code and Geoff Colvin's Talent Is Overrated. Both works correspond with an ongoing theory I've held about how one becomes an intellectual with regard to whatever topic is at hand (assuming that multiple intelligences theories hold): superior ability doesn't always manifest itself clearly for evaluators of youth talent, but drive and discipline that correspond with an strong internal vision can sometimes be detected, and would be equally valuable to evaluators. With that, taking a more working, or developmental, view of "genius" would have no small consequences for how history departments, for instance, ought to select applicants. And since the brightest of our faculties in history are encouraged, for the most part, to develop their own genius to its fullest (i.e. research and publish) rather than train those under them, it seems likely that next generation of history "geniuses" is likely to come from hands-on, teaching-type doctoral departments. In other words, those that don't overly emphasize research.
The second Brooks piece looks at the Harvard College "Grant Study." Here he is underscoring Joshua Wolf Shank's June 2009 Atlantic article. That piece is about the pursuit and causes of happiness, but it's also an object lesson in the caprices of intelligence. It highlights something emphasized by Barzun in House of Intellect: namely, that pursuing the intellectual life has only a moderate correlation with intelligence (circling back to the Coyle/Colvin thesis above, reflecting a consistent thread in Brooks' reading list). And of course all historians should keep these two conclusions from Brooks in mind:
a. "It is as if we all contain a multitude of characters and patterns of behavior, and these characters and patterns are bidden by cues we don’t even hear."
b. "There is a complexity to human affairs before which science and analysis simply stands mute."
- TL
Rabu, 29 April 2009
Theorizing The Culture Wars: Jacques Barzun, Politics, And Fostering Intellectual Life In A Democracy
by Tim Lacy
Jacques Barzun predicted the Culture Wars. Well, maybe not. He was both a historian and a product of his times, not a prophet. But there is little doubt that the Culture Wars of his early years, the 1940s and 1950s, bear at least some resemblance to today's battles over books, religion, the arts, and education.
As such, passages in Barzun's 1959 book, The House of Intellect, both describe his times and explain something about the causes of political and cultural skirmishes of the last quarter of the twentieth century, as well as first decade of the current one. If we read his book with the last 40 or so years in mind, we see the outlines not only of an explanatory theory for the problems of mixing culture and politics, but maybe also some potential solutions. With Barzun in mind, this essay both thinks historically and philosophizes about the present. He will help me demonstrate the usefulness of U.S. intellectual history today.
House of Intellect begins by outlining three primary enemies of the intellect, at least as Barzun saw them in the late 1950s. They were Art, Science, and Philanthropy. These separate but inter-related combatants work against the intellect by: demanding exclusive allegiance (art), garnering intellectual prestige and fearing the so-called regressive effects of the humanities (science), as well as fostering a demeaned equality and psychology of help (philanthropy).[1] Barzun provides much more, of course. For instance, he dedicates an entire chapter (seven) to the insidious generosity of philanthropy.
Barzun defines the “intellect” as neither raw intelligence nor the accumulation of credentials. Rather it is a love for “order, logic, clarity, and speed of communication.” The intellect is characterized by a high degree of literacy (not mere reading skill) and a “feeling of mystery and awe” in learning.[2] His notion of the intellect is not about compromise, material interests, public service, or social peace. The intellect might inform things considered practical and pragmatic, but practice and pragmatism will only be hampered if the intellect alone leads the way. Intelligence, cunning, craftiness, and industriousness work well in a democracy, if ordered toward comprise, but not the intellect. ...
[Continue reading here. You may return to this page for comments.]
Jacques Barzun predicted the Culture Wars. Well, maybe not. He was both a historian and a product of his times, not a prophet. But there is little doubt that the Culture Wars of his early years, the 1940s and 1950s, bear at least some resemblance to today's battles over books, religion, the arts, and education.
As such, passages in Barzun's 1959 book, The House of Intellect, both describe his times and explain something about the causes of political and cultural skirmishes of the last quarter of the twentieth century, as well as first decade of the current one. If we read his book with the last 40 or so years in mind, we see the outlines not only of an explanatory theory for the problems of mixing culture and politics, but maybe also some potential solutions. With Barzun in mind, this essay both thinks historically and philosophizes about the present. He will help me demonstrate the usefulness of U.S. intellectual history today.
House of Intellect begins by outlining three primary enemies of the intellect, at least as Barzun saw them in the late 1950s. They were Art, Science, and Philanthropy. These separate but inter-related combatants work against the intellect by: demanding exclusive allegiance (art), garnering intellectual prestige and fearing the so-called regressive effects of the humanities (science), as well as fostering a demeaned equality and psychology of help (philanthropy).[1] Barzun provides much more, of course. For instance, he dedicates an entire chapter (seven) to the insidious generosity of philanthropy.
Barzun defines the “intellect” as neither raw intelligence nor the accumulation of credentials. Rather it is a love for “order, logic, clarity, and speed of communication.” The intellect is characterized by a high degree of literacy (not mere reading skill) and a “feeling of mystery and awe” in learning.[2] His notion of the intellect is not about compromise, material interests, public service, or social peace. The intellect might inform things considered practical and pragmatic, but practice and pragmatism will only be hampered if the intellect alone leads the way. Intelligence, cunning, craftiness, and industriousness work well in a democracy, if ordered toward comprise, but not the intellect. ...
[Continue reading here. You may return to this page for comments.]
Theorizing The Culture Wars: Jacques Barzun, Politics, And Fostering Intellectual Life In A Democracy
by Tim Lacy
Jacques Barzun predicted the Culture Wars. Well, maybe not. He was both a historian and a product of his times, not a prophet. But there is little doubt that the Culture Wars of his early years, the 1940s and 1950s, bear at least some resemblance to today's battles over books, religion, the arts, and education.
As such, passages in Barzun's 1959 book, The House of Intellect, both describe his times and explain something about the causes of political and cultural skirmishes of the last quarter of the twentieth century, as well as first decade of the current one. If we read his book with the last 40 or so years in mind, we see the outlines not only of an explanatory theory for the problems of mixing culture and politics, but maybe also some potential solutions. With Barzun in mind, this essay both thinks historically and philosophizes about the present. He will help me demonstrate the usefulness of U.S. intellectual history today.
House of Intellect begins by outlining three primary enemies of the intellect, at least as Barzun saw them in the late 1950s. They were Art, Science, and Philanthropy. These separate but inter-related combatants work against the intellect by: demanding exclusive allegiance (art), garnering intellectual prestige and fearing the so-called regressive effects of the humanities (science), as well as fostering a demeaned equality and psychology of help (philanthropy).[1] Barzun provides much more, of course. For instance, he dedicates an entire chapter (seven) to the insidious generosity of philanthropy.
Barzun defines the “intellect” as neither raw intelligence nor the accumulation of credentials. Rather it is a love for “order, logic, clarity, and speed of communication.” The intellect is characterized by a high degree of literacy (not mere reading skill) and a “feeling of mystery and awe” in learning.[2] His notion of the intellect is not about compromise, material interests, public service, or social peace. The intellect might inform things considered practical and pragmatic, but practice and pragmatism will only be hampered if the intellect alone leads the way. Intelligence, cunning, craftiness, and industriousness work well in a democracy, if ordered toward comprise, but not the intellect. ...
[Continue reading here. You may return to this page for comments.]
Jacques Barzun predicted the Culture Wars. Well, maybe not. He was both a historian and a product of his times, not a prophet. But there is little doubt that the Culture Wars of his early years, the 1940s and 1950s, bear at least some resemblance to today's battles over books, religion, the arts, and education.
As such, passages in Barzun's 1959 book, The House of Intellect, both describe his times and explain something about the causes of political and cultural skirmishes of the last quarter of the twentieth century, as well as first decade of the current one. If we read his book with the last 40 or so years in mind, we see the outlines not only of an explanatory theory for the problems of mixing culture and politics, but maybe also some potential solutions. With Barzun in mind, this essay both thinks historically and philosophizes about the present. He will help me demonstrate the usefulness of U.S. intellectual history today.
House of Intellect begins by outlining three primary enemies of the intellect, at least as Barzun saw them in the late 1950s. They were Art, Science, and Philanthropy. These separate but inter-related combatants work against the intellect by: demanding exclusive allegiance (art), garnering intellectual prestige and fearing the so-called regressive effects of the humanities (science), as well as fostering a demeaned equality and psychology of help (philanthropy).[1] Barzun provides much more, of course. For instance, he dedicates an entire chapter (seven) to the insidious generosity of philanthropy.
Barzun defines the “intellect” as neither raw intelligence nor the accumulation of credentials. Rather it is a love for “order, logic, clarity, and speed of communication.” The intellect is characterized by a high degree of literacy (not mere reading skill) and a “feeling of mystery and awe” in learning.[2] His notion of the intellect is not about compromise, material interests, public service, or social peace. The intellect might inform things considered practical and pragmatic, but practice and pragmatism will only be hampered if the intellect alone leads the way. Intelligence, cunning, craftiness, and industriousness work well in a democracy, if ordered toward comprise, but not the intellect. ...
[Continue reading here. You may return to this page for comments.]
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)