Tim's Light Reading (2-9-2012): History as Philosophical Method, the Philosophy of History, Defending the Liberal Arts, and New Research of Interest

1 (of 7). The History of Philosophy?

The history of philosophy is, strangely to historians, both a subject and a method. As historians (i.e. USIH folks) we only engage the first. Philosophy and philosophers are objects of study, especially to the non-history of ideas crowd in the general category of intellectual history. I've noticed that history of ideas folks are more willing to see themselves as philosophers, at least those who work closest to the Lovejovian tradition. A great many philosophers, however, use history as a means toward understanding present-day philosophical problems. This is particularly prominent in the Aristotelian and Thomistic traditions. Points 2 and 4 of this recent NEW APPS post by Eric Schliesser go toward my point about history-of-philosophy as method. Here's a reaction to Schliesser from Mohan Matthen.


2. The Philosophy of History

Speaking of philosophy, we should all examine this entry for the "Philosophy of History" in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP). I was intrigued by its posing the distinction between an Anglo-American and European philosophy of history. Since we've referred to the SEP here a number of times, we ought to return the favor by offering criticisms of their entry. Perhaps this should be another entry? In any case, here's the opening paragraph as a teaser:

The concept of history plays a fundamental role in human thought. It invokes notions of human agency, change, the role of material circumstances in human affairs, and the putative meaning of historical events. It raises the possibility of “learning from history.” And it suggests the possibility of better understanding ourselves in the present, by understanding the forces, choices, and circumstances that brought us to our current situation. It is therefore unsurprising that philosophers have sometimes turned their attention to efforts to examine history itself and the nature of historical knowledge. These reflections can be grouped together into a body of work called “philosophy of history.” This work is heterogeneous, comprising analyses and arguments of idealists, positivists, logicians, theologians, and others, and moving back and forth over the divides between European and Anglo-American philosophy, and between hermeneutics and positivism.


3. Defending the Liberal Arts for the 21st Century

I know that defenses of the liberal arts are a dime a dozen, but I liked this one by Nannerl Keohane [right] that appeared recently in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Keohane provides five answers to this question: "How do we defend liberal education against the skeptics—parents, potential students, the media, the marketplace, even some trustees and students?" And then the author provides three ways that "college presidents today [can] best go about making the case for the liberal arts." Keohane forgot the liberal arts sometimes have to be defended from college presidents---tinker toy presidents more interested in buildings that human capital.


4. More on the Alinsky-Obama-Newt Triangle

Two weeks ago I wrote on a new iteration of the culture wars involving Alinsky, Obama, and Newt. This is already old news. But just a few days ago I discovered that two other historians had written on the topic: Michael Kazin one day before me for The New Republic, as well as Thomas Sugrue [right] on February 7 for Salon.com. I appended both of these to my post, but I want to say I was surprised at myself after reading both. Kazin and Sugrue underscored the point about subsidiarity that I should've caught. Shame on me. It takes a village, I guess, to get the history right.


5. America in France

A few days ago Andrew Hartman asked us about the literature on, or histories of, the reception of various foreign intellectuals in the United States. This "Five Books Interview" at The Browser turns the question around and broadens it out. In the piece Richard Kuisel [right], a Georgetown University professor who specializes in Franco-American relations, is asked to list five works that enlighten us on French attitudes toward America. We could probably use a book on this topic for every country in the world, but certain countries stand out presently: Russia, Iran, Pakistan, China, etc. And not only do we need more studies on this, but every world history curriculum in U.S. institutions should have a class covering the topic.


6. Things I Want to Read

From the new Journal of the History of Ideas (73, no. 1):

a. Review-Essay: Learn This Forward but Understand It Backward
NEIL JUMONVILLE

...Who is this "Neil Jumonville" character? ;)

b. Identity and Diversity in the History of Ideas: A Reply to Brian Tierney
S. ADAM SEAGRAVE

...I think I'm going to need to read Tierney to get this one, though I'm intrigued by the title.


7. New Research of Interest--From My JAH-RSO Feed

These are things I _might_ want to read, but am not sure yet (except for one, noted below).

a. McVicar, Michael J., "Reconstructing America: Religion, American Conservatism, and the Political Theology of Rousas John Rushdoony" (PhD Diss, Ohio State University, 2010).

...Is this the definitive work on Rushdoony?

b. Porter, Patrick, "Beyond the American Century: Walter Lippmann and American Grand Strategy, 1943-1950," Diplomacy and Statecraft, 22 (no. 4, 2011), 557-77.

...For you Lippmann fans

c. Sizemore, Michelle R., "National Enchantment: Sovereignty, History, and the Making of U.S. Imperialism, 1790-1850" (PhD Diss, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 2010).

...I wonder who directed this? Cronon?

d. Creed, J. Bradley, "The Education Demanded by the People of the United States: Francis Wayland and the Future of American Higher Education," Baptist History & Heritage, 46 (Summer 2011), 7-22.

...Intriguing title, though I can't imagine Wayland philosophizing about higher education in a way that is inclusive of all U.S. citizens.

e. Loss, Christopher P., Between Citizens and the State: The Politics of American Higher Education in the 20th Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012).

...This looks like a must read/must review for USIH folks.

f. Maxwell, Donald William, "Unguarded Border: The Movement of People and Ideas between the United States and Canada during the Vietnam War Era" (PhD Diss, Indiana University, 2010).

...Having recently taught a course on the transnational American Midwest, wherein Canada (esp. via the Great Lakes) figured prominently, this is really intriguing to me.

-----------------------------------------

What do you think of making a separate post of the SEP entry? - TL

Saul Alinsky, Newt Gingrich, And The Culture Wars---Conducted Transtemporally

A couple of years ago, in a "Tim's Light Reading" entry, I mentioned Saul Alinsky. At the time I expressed some surprise upon learning that Alinsky maintained a thirty-year correspondence with the French Catholic neo-Thomist philosopher Jacques Maritain. I have three subsequent observations: (1) Have I really been putting up "light reading" posts that long? Wow. Then again, yesterday was this blog's fifth birthday. (2) I'm _still_ amazed that Alinsky and Maritain kept in touch that long. (3) That post is the _only_ mention before today of Alinsky here at USIH. Today I am going to blow out (3) in a big way.

Why? Newt Gingrich, of course! He's our recent bete noire, between the weblog and our USIH Facebook page. I can give you three guesses, but you'll see Gingrich-Alinsky link in the following passages from this story (bolds mine):

------------------------------------------------------
Nearly 40 years after his death, Saul Alinsky's name is back in the news, peppered throughout presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich's speeches.

A native Chicagoan, Alinsky was "the father of community organizing," said Sanford D. Horwitt, author of Let Them Call Me Rebel: A Biography of Saul Alinsky."

"He invented community organizing … this very unique form of political action," Horwitt said, adding that Alinsky believed the goal of organizing people was to give them power.

It's that "community organizer" moniker that Gingrich is attempting to use in comparing Alinsky to President Barack Obama, who first came to Chicago as a community organizer practicing Alinsky's model, according to historians.

After winning the South Carolina Republican primary Saturday, Gingrich referenced Obama's "Saul Alinsky radicalism," painting it in a negative light. ...

"Newt realizes this is just an act, saying Alinsky is a dangerous radical. Gingrich is enough of a historian to know what Alinsky was about," Horwitt said. "This is something that he is feeding to a part of the conservative right."
------------------------------------------------------

And the article goes on to recount the parallel between this and Tea Party enthusiasts continually reminding us of the links between Obama and another piece of radical living history, Bill Ayers. Politicians really are good at the guilt-by-association game.

But who IS Saul Alinsky? Here's your introduction to him from the rest of the article above (links that follow are mine):

------------------------------------------------------
Born in January 1909, Alinsky grew up on [Chicago's] West Side, studied criminology at the University of Chicago and worked in state prisons before deciding he could make a bigger difference at the community level, said former Washington Post reporter Nicholas von Hoffman, who wrote Radical: A Portrait of Saul Alinsky.

Von Hoffman, who before becoming a journalist worked alongside Alinsky from 1953 to 1962, said Alinsky fought for fair working conditions, affordable housing and any cause that "boiled down to one thing: organizing people so they have a decent shake."

Alinsky's tactics included tying up bank teller lines with volunteers repeatedly exchanging a $100 bill for pennies and vice versa as a way to protest banking institutions, said John Kretzmann, professor at Northwestern University's School of Education and Social Policy. Another involved Alinsky's followers threatening to occupy all the bathrooms atO'Hare International Airportfor an entire day. The threat alone granted Alinsky a meeting with then-Mayor Richard J. Daley, Kretzmann said.
------------------------------------------------------

And here's more from "Professor Wikipedia."

A significant portion of the entry derives from a 1972 Playboy magazine article (24, 403 words!), conducted a few months before Alinsky's death and reproduced here. Here are a few nuggets from the Wikipedia entry, mostly from that interview*, with brief commentary, both humorous and serious:

1. Time magazine once wrote that "American democracy is being altered by Alinsky's ideas," and conservative author William F. Buckley said he was "very close to being an organizational genius."

You'd think that Gingrich would appreciate Alinsky's focus on ideas. Then again, as Ben Alpers reminded us via two funny quotes from Frank and Krugman, the rigor behind Newt's ideas are often suspect. [BTW: Check out this post by long-time USIH blog friend and S-USIH founding member, Julian Nemeth, on Buckley, Gingrich, and Republican victimhood.]

2. Because of his strict Jewish upbringing, he was asked whether he ever encountered antisemitism while growing up in Chicago. He replied, "it was so pervasive you didn't really even think about it; you just accepted it as a fact of life." He considered himself to be a devout Jew until the age of 12, after which time he began to fear that his parents would force him to become a rabbi. "I went through some pretty rapid withdrawal symptoms and kicked the habit ... But I'll tell you one thing about religious identity," he added. "Whenever anyone asks me my religion, I always say—and always will say—Jewish."

It appears Alinksy had a Tony Judt-ish-type relationship with his religious/ethnic identity. [BTW #2 related to PhD Octopus: Check out this post by David Weinfeld on Judt.]

3. Contrary to the Chicago Tribune article above, Alinsky was an undergraduate major in archaeology. But then there's this confusing passage from Wikipedia, apparently derived from the Playboy interview: After attending two years of graduate school he dropped out to accept work as a community organizer for the state of Illinois as a criminologist. Hmm...

4. Alinsky's work as a community organizer attracted the attention of Adlai Stevenson: His early efforts to "turn scattered, voiceless discontent into a united protest aroused the admiration of Illinois governor Adlai Stevenson, who said Alinsky's aims 'most faithfully reflect our ideals of brotherhood, tolerance, charity and dignity of the individual.'"

Getting praised by Stevenson in the Forties probably wasn't the kiss of death in relation to anti-intellectual/anti-Egghead associations. That wouldn't occur until the 1950s, I believe.

5. When asked during an interview whether he ever considered becoming a Communist party member, he replied: "Not at any time. I've never joined any organization—not even the ones I've organized myself. I prize my own independence too much. And philosophically, I could never accept any rigid dogma or ideology, whether it's Christianity or Marxism. One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're right.' If you don't have that, if you think you've got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated. The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down to Communist purges and Nazi genocide."

So isn't it ironic that Gingrich, whom Alinsky would've no doubt called "intellectually constipated," is holding up Obama as a president that follows the ideology of a figure who despised ideology to the point of avoiding organizations he himself organized? Isn't it interesting to see the Culture Wars conducted transtemporally, or is this Gingrich living history in ideas? Consult with LD's recent post on "Big Ideas," particularly the parts on David Armitage, to make whatever sense you want of my last question.

6. And this: Alinsky described his plans in 1972 to begin to organize the white middle class across America, and the necessity of that project. He believed that what President Richard Nixon and Vice-President Spiro Agnew called "The Silent Majority" was living in frustration and despair, worried about their future,

and ripe for a turn to radical social change, to become politically-active citizens. He feared the middle class could be driven to a right-wing viewpoint, "making them ripe for the plucking by some guy on horseback promising a return to the vanished verities of yesterday." His stated motive: "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."

Was Alinsky unknowingly forecasting the arrival, on the wings of the New Right, of that famous presidential hero of American Western films, Ronald Reagan? - TL

------------------------------------------------------

*I don't have the time, right now, to read the whole book interview

Tim's Light Reading (11/2/09)

1.a. The History of the Idea of Political Correctness: With a hat tip to John Quiggin at Crooked Timber, this old NYT story and the Wikipedia entry for political correctness got me thinking about how a history of the idea in the United States would look. It would seem that no history of the Culture Wars could be written without some accounting of the roots of p.c. But would it begin with the linguistic turn, as Quiggin briefly asserts? Or is it a Left political phenomenon, as some conservative thinkers assert, and the Wikipedia and NYT articles support? And while I've brought up Wikipedia, the early historical sample given there in relation to the U.S. (Chisholm versus Georgia, 1793) seems to confuse political theory with language usage. But maybe this is just a case of more context being needed with quote?

1.b. Related Aside: Philosophy of the History of Ideas: Is it just me, or can you turn anything into a form of intellectual history by giving the topic Platonic-like form/idea status and then claim to talk about its history? If so, then historians of ideas are going to run into the same critical problem Aristotle had with Plato: How many forms are there? And if *everything* has a form (which it appears even Plato did not assert), then isn't it more useful to talk about the specifics of the real object in front of you rather than the idea? But I suppose that kind of materialism is an anti-historical line of thought. I mean, if everything is unique, then there is no history. But this goes against our common sense. Even if the number of forms is not infinite, the pool of them is large enough that there is plenty of material with which to work. Perhaps it's necessary to being a historian that we believe there's an underlying-but-similar essence about which we can discuss change. The issue then becomes a well-worn one: how much change? In any case, it appears that a certain amount of Platonism, combined with the possibility of change, buttresses our attraction to the history of ideas.

2. The Creation of a Neoliberal Audit Culture in Higher Education: Decasia's Eli Thorkelson meditates on how Margaret Spellings' ill-fated effort to control/dictate/reform higher education accountability has led to a voluntary regimen of outcomes assessment over the past few years. To quote the post, this has created a new "neoliberal audit culture" in higher education (the phrase might be from Morten Levin or Cornell University's Davydd Greenwood).

3. Jennifer Burns' Competition: After Jennifer Burns received excellent exposure for her new book on The Daily Show (#6 here), another biography of Ayn Rand is now on the market: Anne C. Heller's Ayn Rand and the World She Made. Here is a review. I like the present-past connections made in Kirsch's review. And Kirsch does mention Burns' effort. Amazon shows the release of Burns' book as Oct. 19 and Weller's as Oct. 27. Our days in the sun do not last long, do they? [BTW: Here is an excellent combined review of Burns' and Heller's books.]

4. Saul Alinsky and Jacques Maritain: About a month ago I learned that Alinsky and the moderate-to-liberal Catholic Thomistic philosopher Maritain maintained correspondence for almost 30 years, from 1945 until Alinsky's death in 1972. This was sort of a "worlds colliding" moment for me. And there's a book about it, no less: Bernard E. Doering's The Philosopher and the Provocateur. I suppose this is a reiteration of a lesson I've learned many times over: Never the let the *reputation* of person's philosophical commitments and social views (whether Left or Right) dictate your assumptions about her/his connections with the rest of the world.

Tim's Light Reading (11/2/09)

1.a. The History of the Idea of Political Correctness: With a hat tip to John Quiggin at Crooked Timber, this old NYT story and the Wikipedia entry for political correctness got me thinking about how a history of the idea in the United States would look. It would seem that no history of the Culture Wars could be written without some accounting of the roots of p.c. But would it begin with the linguistic turn, as Quiggin briefly asserts? Or is it a Left political phenomenon, as some conservative thinkers assert, and the Wikipedia and NYT articles support? And while I've brought up Wikipedia, the early historical sample given there in relation to the U.S. (Chisholm versus Georgia, 1793) seems to confuse political theory with language usage. But maybe this is just a case of more context being needed with quote?

1.b. Related Aside: Philosophy of the History of Ideas: Is it just me, or can you turn anything into a form of intellectual history by giving the topic Platonic-like form/idea status and then claim to talk about its history? If so, then historians of ideas are going to run into the same critical problem Aristotle had with Plato: How many forms are there? And if *everything* has a form (which it appears even Plato did not assert), then isn't it more useful to talk about the specifics of the real object in front of you rather than the idea? But I suppose that kind of materialism is an anti-historical line of thought. I mean, if everything is unique, then there is no history. But this goes against our common sense. Even if the number of forms is not infinite, the pool of them is large enough that there is plenty of material with which to work. Perhaps it's necessary to being a historian that we believe there's an underlying-but-similar essence about which we can discuss change. The issue then becomes a well-worn one: how much change? In any case, it appears that a certain amount of Platonism, combined with the possibility of change, buttresses our attraction to the history of ideas.

2. The Creation of a Neoliberal Audit Culture in Higher Education: Decasia's Eli Thorkelson meditates on how Margaret Spellings' ill-fated effort to control/dictate/reform higher education accountability has led to a voluntary regimen of outcomes assessment over the past few years. To quote the post, this has created a new "neoliberal audit culture" in higher education (the phrase might be from Morten Levin or Cornell University's Davydd Greenwood).

3. Jennifer Burns' Competition: After Jennifer Burns received excellent exposure for her new book on The Daily Show (#6 here), another biography of Ayn Rand is now on the market: Anne C. Heller's Ayn Rand and the World She Made. Here is a review. I like the present-past connections made in Kirsch's review. And Kirsch does mention Burns' effort. Amazon shows the release of Burns' book as Oct. 19 and Weller's as Oct. 27. Our days in the sun do not last long, do they? [BTW: Here is an excellent combined review of Burns' and Heller's books.]

4. Saul Alinsky and Jacques Maritain: About a month ago I learned that Alinsky and the moderate-to-liberal Catholic Thomistic philosopher Maritain maintained correspondence for almost 30 years, from 1945 until Alinsky's death in 1972. This was sort of a "worlds colliding" moment for me. And there's a book about it, no less: Bernard E. Doering's The Philosopher and the Provocateur. I suppose this is a reiteration of a lesson I've learned many times over: Never the let the *reputation* of person's philosophical commitments and social views (whether Left or Right) dictate your assumptions about her/his connections with the rest of the world.