To anyone who is nearing the end of a $150,000+ education, reading Allen Bloom’s The Closing Of the American Mind can be described as nothing short of exasperating. It seems that University students of the day lack an appreciation of music or books. Our education, which is based on an openness principle makes everyone a part of the same cultural group but does not demand that they conform to any one thing. “There is no enemy other than the man who is not open to everything.” (27) But how then can a culture, or even Culture (as Bloom does mention both definitions) be defined in America, a country where apparently children are “raised, not educated.” (57)
Is America “a mere aggregate of individuals, a dumping ground for the refuse from other places devoted to consuming,” (187) as Bloom claims the Charles De Gaulles of the world will see it. How does this affect our education?
Bloom also attacks the teaching of a non-ethnocentric attitude. That what we actually think is openness, is indeed just an “openness to closeness,” (38) brought on by an increased interest in cultural relativism. How would Ruth Benedict relate to or comment on statements like this?
Perhaps most frustrating about Blooms book is the way he simply seems to attack the very principles in which this country was founded on based on the philosophies of men like John Locke. He takes on a concept from antiquity about living the good life based solely on philosophy and classics which seems outdated and unrealistic. This book is almost like propaganda for Plato’s republic. A media blitz. It seems he has set his hopes too high. How close-minded is Bloom himself?
4 comments:
"Bloom also attacks the teaching of a non-ethnocentric attitude. That what we actually think is openness, is indeed just an 'openness to closeness,' (38) brought on by an increased interest in cultural relativism."
I think there is some validity in his claim that students are taught "to recognize that there are other ways of thinking and that Western ways are not better" without actually learning "something of the minds of any of these non-Western cultures" (36), although he is exaggerating a bit. But this argument about ethnocentrism becomes exasperating when he argues that "[o]nly in the Western nations, i.e., those influenced by Greek philosophy, is there some willingness to doubt the identification of the good with one’s own way" (36). It has largely been Western nations who have violently imposed their cultures on non-Western regions through colonization and who have felt the need to "civilize" other peoples by supplying them with Western customs, modes of thought, and religion. When historical fact undermines Bloom's statements – like "America tells one story: the unbroken, ineluctable progress of freedom and equality" (55) – and when he deliberately ignores the ways in which reality differs from his discussions of American culture "in principle," it's very difficult to take the more legitimate aspects of his argument seriously. (Not to mention the section on rock.)
"How would Ruth Benedict relate to or comment on statements like this?"
Although there may be truth to the fact that students do not always learn about the "minds of other cultures" in school, Benedict's anthropology accentuates the fact that one studying other cultures should study them in the field. Benedict and her colleagues stressed the importance of studying other cultures in filed so that one can really learn about the way they think, as opposed to just learning facts about them. Benedict stresses the fact that "people are shaped to the form of their culture because of the enormous malleability of their original endowment." (Benedict, 254) Bloom cites Plato when talking about culture as a cave, but then goes on to say "Nature should be the standard by which we judge our own lives and the lives of peoples." (38) However, Bloom fails to distinguish nature and the culture one is born into, and if they are different. Assuming that he believes they are not, where do people who do not automatically agree with the ideals of their own culture fit?
I agree with you Erin. Bloom's status on the American mind seems to imply a need for prejudice and naivety. Referring to various factions and defined groups (such as the Southern writers)of our American past, Bloom claims that "openness has driven out the local dieties, leaving only the speechless, meaningless country" (56). The way I understand it, Bloom seems to say that, without the KKK, slavery, the study of European classics, and the passion to enforce one's "cultured" perceptions on others, the American people are empty and meaningless. If he thinks the European philosophers, such as Kant and Plato, are so great that their ideas should be preserved through time, why doesn't he prove it using straighforward historical evidence of their times if their "cultures" were so great? Pride and prejudice is predominant throughout European history, especially among the "intellectual" and "spiritual," and their perceptions, when deciphered, mirrorr the perceptions of ignorant activists and religious fanatics who were the cause of war and strife in Europe. An American is different from a "Frenchman" (53) simply because the French, as well as pretty much the rest of Europe, couldn't seem to figure out how to stop killing each other. America kills in the name of "Americans" too, but only because desire for wealth and power have consistently plagued mankind from the beginning of time, and mankind is never consistent in his actions, so he will inevitably deviate from principles of freedom and equality. The key is to strive for those principles in every way possible, and to seek knowledge in all respectable avenues of information, so as to nourish your understanding of yourself, mankind and everything in between. For many, like myself, faith in God guides intellectual and social endeavors.
Also, I express much of the same sentiment that Alex expresses in the following passage:
"Perhaps most frustrating about Blooms book is the way he simply seems to attack the very principles in which this country was founded on based on the philosophies of men like John Locke. He takes on a concept from antiquity about living the good life based solely on philosophy and classics which seems outdated and unrealistic. This book is almost like propaganda for Plato’s republic. A media blitz. It seems he has set his hopes too high."
Post a Comment