Daily Archives: Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Keep Your Eyes On The Prize

Wouldn’t it be grand to see this performed at the inauguration?  Except, I suppose, that it would have me and everyone else blubbering away uncontrollably.

American exceptionalism and other national destinies

In the words of Gottlieb Fichte a certury earlier, “The German alone…can be a patriot; he alone can for the sake of his nation encompass the whole of mankind; constrasted with him from now on, the patriotism of every other nation must be egoistic, narrow and hostile to the rest of mankind”…

Dostoyevsky wrote that Russians were “the only God-bearing people on earth, destined to re-generate and save the world”.

Anatol Lieven, “America – Right or Wrong”, p 34

misology

distrust or hatred of reason or reasoning.
noun
Origin:
1825–35; miso- + -logy

Hofstadter (part the last)

My introduction to Hofstadter actually came via a first year English Lit course, taught by an American prof and in the context of classical Greek literature.  Though I was a mature student, most everyone else in that huge lecture hall was about 19 years old and the prof had the task of somehow getting these kids to wade into the Athenian mind and not drown.  As so much of Greek literature arises out of the re-telling/reformulation of old mythologies, the prof began with a definition of ”myth”.  That definition had been written by Hofstadter and it has continued to prove one of the most valuable intellectual tools I’ve bumped into for understanding American (or any other) political culture.

 By myth I do not mean an idea that is simply false, but rather one that so effectively embodies men’s values that it profoundly influences their way of perceiving reality and hence their behavior. (The Age of Reform, 1955)

Far moreso than Canada (or at least far more visibly than is the case in Canada) the American national identity is bound up with myth stories.  These stories, and the assumptions which arise from them, have a determinative effect on general perceptions Americans have regarding their nation and its relationship to other nations.  And then, as Hofstadter points out, upon behavior.

Probably the clearest example of this relates to notions of American exceptionalism.  My experiences, and there have been many of them, in discussing these exceptionalist notions with both Americans and non-Americans has demonstrated that for many Americans (not all by any means) these exceptionalist assumptions are self-evident truths, not needing inspection.  In fact, inspection or questioning of them may well be perceived, axiomatically, as instances of anti-Americanism.  This can be fairly startling for non-Americans. 

A relevant (and very good) book on this subject is Anatol Lieven’s “America – Right or Wrong”, Oxford University Press, 2004.

Hofstadter (part deux)

Within a year of the publication of the book just described in the earlier post, Hofstadter wrote a now famous essay for Harpers.  I’m going to quote the beginning of it here because of its clear relevance for our present situation (and to give readers a quick and tasty bit of the fellow).  The entire essay can be found at the link noted below…

The Paranoid Style in American Politics

By Richard Hofstadter
Harper’s Magazine, November 1964, pp. 77-86.

It had been around a long time before the Radical Right discovered it—and its targets have ranged from “the international bankers” to Masons, Jesuits, and munitions makers.

    American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority. But behind this I believe there is a style of mind that is far from new and that is not necessarily right-wind. I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind. In using the expression “paranoid style” I am not speaking in a clinical sense, but borrowing a clinical term for other purposes. I have neither the competence nor the desire to classify any figures of the past or present as certifiable lunatics., In fact, the idea of the paranoid style as a force in politics would have little contemporary relevance or historical value if it were applied only to men with profoundly disturbed minds. It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant.
    Of course this term is pejorative, and it is meant to be; the paranoid style has a greater affinity for bad causes than good. But nothing really prevents a sound program or demand from being advocated in the paranoid style. Style has more to do with the way in which ideas are believed than with the truth or falsity of their content. I am interested here in getting at our political psychology through our political rhetoric. The paranoid style is an old and recurrent phenomenon in our public life which has been frequently linked with movements of suspicious discontent…
(continue reading at link below)

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html

Richard Hofstadter (part one)

My understanding of American political thought and history has been influenced (a great deal, I confess) by the historian Richard Hofstadter, particularly his book “Anti-Intellectualism in American Life”.  Published in 1964 (for which he was awarded his second Pulitzer) the book was a response to the political events of the fifties, McCarthy’s rise and fall particularly, and to the emergence of the extremist tendencies of the Goldwater movement.  But Hofstadter’s address to what America witnessed in that period was the address of an historian…

“Anti-intellectualism was not manifested in this country for the first time during the 1950′s.  Our anti-intellectualism is, in fact, older than our national identity, and has a long historical background.  An examination of this background suggests that regard for intellectuals in the United States has not moved steadily downward and has not gone into a sudden, recent decline, but is subject to cyclical fluctuations…”

Given our own contemporary period, with Rush Limbaugh and the other talk radio shows modeled on his, given Murdoch’s Fox network, given Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber there seems no question that this cyclical anti-intellectualism is again a signal aspect of political culture in the US. 

It would be a fine thing indeed if every bookshelf had a copy of this work.  And as it happens, your bookshelf can have a copy… http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Intellectualism-American-Life-Richard-Hofstadter/dp/0394703170  I don’t think there is any other book on American thought and politics which I would recommend more highly than this one.

Bernie Latham