Monday, 01 May 2006

Historians, Start Your Engines...

The same day I get tagged by the History Carnival for my post on "Useable Pasts" sees my friend, the UPS man, arrive at my door to deliver Richard Hofstadter: An Intellectual Biography.  How fortuitous.  David Brown's book demonstrates one problem with the field of intellectual history:

Intellectual historians often take the thinkers they write about at their word.  I know you know the dead horse I wallop here.*  For those who don't, a refresher course.  The chapter on Social Darwinism and American Thought opens promisingly enough.  "The New Deal changed everything," Brown writes. 

And it did. 

The influence of the New Deal and the reaction of those who, like Hofstadter, stood to Roosevelt's left cannot be quashed from any responsible intellectual history of the period.  The New Deal shaped the dissertating Hofstadter's politics to a great extent, so much so that the former Communist critic of the New Deal created a mythic philosophical movement with which the New Dealers could pound their opponents.  But from that point forward the quality of the chapter declines steeply. 

Example #1:

But Hofstadter produced his thesis under the eye of Merle Curti, a pioneer in the emerging field of intellectual history.  Liberated from the Progressive penchant for appointing heroes and villains, Hofstadter was able to merge both his politics and scholarship into a powerful critique of the great titans. (29)

What?  You want to know how Hofstadter "liberated himself from Progressive penchant for appointing heroes and villains," don't you?  So do I.  I've read few books as many times as I've read Social Darwinism and that statement so disconforms from my knowledge of the book that I'm barely able to type the following summary of Hofstadter's "Table of Contents":

  1. "The Coming of Darwinism": Summary of the period.
  2. "The Vogue of Spencer": Spencer is a big fat villain.
  3. "William Graham Sumner: Social Darwinist": So is Sumner.
  4. "Lester Ward: Critic": My Hero!
  5. "Evolution, Ethics, and Society": Huxley dreamy, Kidd nightmarish.
  6. "The Dissenters": My Heroes!
  7. "The Current of Pragmatism": Williams James and John Dewey!  Give me a "P"!  Give me an "R"!  Give me . . .

I could continue, but I think I've made my point.  Hofstadter went to great lengths to create heroes and villains in his turn-of-the-century yarn.  On some level, even Brown knows this:

Hofstadter found a foil to Sumner's philosophy in the impressive scholarship of Lester Ward. (32)

How, I wonder, does one have a foil without antipodes?  And if Sumner plays foil to "the impressive" Lester Ward, how does that antipodal logic not cast Sumner as the villain and Ward as the hero?  I'm baffled.  I could continue all night, but I want to save some material for tomorrow.  I'm only three pages into the chapter on Social Darwinism, but I should stop now, as I'm tempted to say, pace Ms. Parker, that this book should not be tossed lightly aside but hurled with great force.

*Those with access to the OED can witness the fine pun I stumbled into there.

May 1, 2006 8:36:46 PM | Academia, Books, Dissertation, Evolution, From the Archives, Literary Theory, Literature, Philosophy, Weblogs

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Non-Eclectic Eclecticism In response to comments on Friday's Random Ten, I wonder if the class would like to discuss why so many academics have such similar taste in music. Dr. Virago, Belle Lettre, Lauren, Craig and Jon all correspond to different colors in the leftist intellectual rainbow. Yet if they ask their portable .mp3 players to speak they do so with one voice. (Which apparently sounds much like Jeff Tweedy's circa Summerteeth.) How is it that thinkers who pledge allegiance to Green have the same taste in music as those who espouse undying love of Blue? And what are we to make of the Reds and the Yellows? How did this strange state affairs come to be? Common roots? Were we outcasts all in high school? Does reading too much at too young an age predispose us to love of Morrissey and "alternative country"? An article about Morrissey's wild popularity in Mexico claimed that Mexicans love him because of the melodramatic ambiguity of his lyrics.* Is that why we love him? "There Is a Light That Never Goes Out" [edited to refelct the fact that I confuse the lyrics with the title of that song] moved my adolescent heart via its elegant and articulate bombast. Why did it cause yours to skip a beat? Why does the answer to that question have anything to do with Theory? I'm not sure. But perhaps we can tease out some sub-sub-sub-cultural distinctions which will account for our apparent similarities in musical taste. Do those who favor theoretical eclecticism tend more toward experimental music? Or do they also have a soft spot for Springsteen's working class epic "The River"? Why (hypothetically) can they abide by Morrissey but not Springsteen? &c. *At a concert in Arizona, Morrissey told the largely Latino audience that they could stay for the concert but would have to return to Mexico at its conclusion. As Gustavo Arellano noted, "Only one white man in the world—and he's not the Pope—can tell a group of Mexicans in the United States to return to Mexico and not only avert death, but be loved for saying so."
PREVIOUS POST
Why Deaf Men Are Breast Men [Two posts written while Typepad writhed: "Get Your Pretty Tired Act!" and "I Don't Speak Neanderthal, But . . ."] Tonight I want to talk to you about staring at women's breasts. I do it all the time. I'll be standing there talking to a woman only to be stricken by the sudden and irresistible urge to stare at her breasts. She'll register her discomfort by pulling her lapels close or yanking her plunging neckline chin-high. Then she'll become intensely interested in objects in the general vicinity of her feet. But I won't let that deter me. I'll continue to stare at her breasts until she won't be able to take it anymore and informs me in tones of suppressed outrage that she had some important elsewhere to be fifteen minutes ago. Then she'll never talk to me again. Such is the experience of the deaf man in America today. When the eyes of a hearing man break contact and wander south, the obvious conclusion is the correct one: he is staring at her breasts and she is justifiably uncomfortable. When a deaf man who relies on verbal cues and lip-reading to converse lets his eyes drift south of his conversant's, he stops at her lips. (You can tell because if he didn't—that is, if he actually stared at her breasts—he would have no clue how to answer whatever it is she would have said to him while he indulged in some "covert" sexism.) Why mention this in the one forum this commonplace of deaf life will never make anyone uncomfortable? Because I've acquired another rude habit: Talking to people while wearing headphones. People who know me—for example, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Barry Siegel—won't bat an eye when I talk to them with my headphones on because they'll know that I'm reading their lips and not paying attention to the music. They'll know that I'm so invested in the conversation that I've forgotten that I have the headphones on and have merely neglected to remove them. But other people—for example, the inimitable Gay Talese—will look at me horrified as I chat with Barry without removing my headphones. His eyes will rebel against the solipsistic impertinence of youth culture he detects in my actions. I register his discomfort but, blinded by reputation and desperately trying to impress him, I won't understand what it is I've said that so offends him. I'll rifle my brain for the offensive statement the entire walk home and come up empty. Only later that night, as I force myself to stop thinking about the events of the day, will I realize what I've done. And then? So much for sleep.

Scott Eric Kaufman

The Typepad Team

Search

Become a Fan

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments