The Culture We Deserve

by Jacques Barzun

Book Overview

Twelve essays exploring aspects of literacy and art criticism, retrospective sociology and the effects of relativism on moral behavior.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0819562378
• ISBN13: 9780819562371
• Release Date: May 1989
• Publisher: Wesleyan University Press
• Length: 200 Pages
• Weight: 0.55 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.6" x 5.4" x 8.0"

Customer Reviews

An Intelligent View of Authenic Learning and Culture

Jacques Barzun'S collection of essays title THE CULTURE WE DESERVE demonstrates some of the problems in modern America. Barzun diagnoses the problems of false egalitarianism the lact of respect for serious learning. He shows that institutionalizing lack of ability and the politicalization of "education" have corroded the professions and serious culture. One of the problems that Barzun realizes is that "experts" have incorrectly assumed that everyone is an artist whether it be writing, painting and sculpture, drama, etc. Mother Nature is not so generous. Barzun clearly sees a glut of poor art, bad drama and acting, etc. Those who suppose themselves as artists are not satisfied with local success and limited exposure. These average or less than average "artists" whine that government subsidies and taxpayer support enhance their efforts. The problem is that someone will be omitted resulting in political struggles reducing art to a lobbying program that inhibits actual art. Such a glut in the arts results in loss of appreciation and taste. Devotees are overwhelmed by exhibitions, plays, musical performances, etc. that they never have a chance to savor bona fide art and music. The glut has reduced art to a political contest and an over production of useless work. The problem infects historical studies. Barzun focuses on the problem that historians no longer write honest accounts based on documents. Historians have been seduced to write false accounts based on political correctness or some favored thesis. For example, Barzun comments on the fact that some argue that inventions dominate the course of events as though individual decisions do not count. For example, the Colt revolver supposedly changed the American frontier. Barzun wryly notes that some attention should be given to Sam Colt who invented the revolver. The single cause thesis comes is exposed by Barzun who is clear that historical accounts shoule be based on docuements which often deomonstrate several complex causes. In other words, documents and authenic sources reveal that study of history is more complex than politically correct narratives and single cause theories. As for those who compare Barzun to "conservative" political figures should read the one review whereby the reviewer states clearly that Barzun was never an imperialist or a racist. His writing shows a certain charm and respect even for those with whom he disagrees. Finally, one should note that Barzun is not a snob. Some intelletual efforts are worthy of praise,but some are not. This reviewer shares Barzun's respect for others. This reviewer admires those who are skilled in the building and construction trades. People are different, and to pretend to believe in an idealistic egalitarian society is useless and is not the way men are. Like some of the other reviewers, this writer does not agree with all of Barzun's conclusions. Yet, Barzun is so knowledgeable and writes so well that readers would do we

People just don't get it

This book deserves six stars, and mainly because of people like the one-star reviewer before me. For me, a non-reader who, it turns out, was that exactly because of all those post-modern "egalitarians" of our day who write the most boring books on earth (*thinking* they can write because they can quote other, equally boring and useless "scholars" in a million footnotes).To me these essays by Barzun were nothing new. The tune was similar to that of "Begin Here" and "From Dawn to Decadence," which is, he said it as it really is. College has deteriorated to some hippie gathering; the government tries its best to dumb down everyone to achieve some perverted condition of equality by imposing more stupid legislation while refusing to rely on reason; and there are all the trainspotters out there who think that by specialising in one "extracurricular" thing they deserve to be called intellectuals and Renaissance men.One does not have to agree with everything Barzun says, but he clearly espouses the use of rational mind in this age of TV and anti-everything protests. He speaks of enjoying things because they are good and deservedly so. He advises on thinking as a pleasure, reading as a pleasure, savouring creations of art because it is good, not "original." He approves of earned inequality: if one is more skilful, experienced, learned, or simply more intelligent, it is only natural for these individuals to be respected for what they have achieved. Democratising everything is a crime against humanity because it holds back the best of the best. No wonder he had to call the book "The Culture We Deserve"--because of this deliberate and myopic levelling.If my esteemed opponent had read these essays with more care rather than his bias by default (I'm sure you hated the book before opening it), he would have noticed that Barzun does not approve of racism or imperialism. Barzun is a historian first and foremost, and he is simply recording the story of the Western civilisation. Simply because he is not being ideological, prescriptive, and normative but rather a man of strong and well-founded opinions, who can also write exquisitely, it does not mean he is wrong. Just because you were of the Gore- or Nader-voting herd with little critical ability and esteem for individual talent, there is no need to compare him to George W. Bush.Barzun is right in his view of this age as decadent (and he does not make a judgement of this state of affairs, please note), and in that the cause for that is the massive drive to emancipate and to return to primitivism. This century has produced few great figures in history except for populist and militant dictators who have been able to manipulate faceless masses. There is no incentive to set oneself apart because it is regarded so scornfully by the "democratised" majority as showing off or "unfair." In our day, there is little respect for any great achievement, which I think Barzun's work is. Barzun is a tremendous inspiration.

a generous spirit

Whoever wants to know the heart and mind of America had better learn baseball. -Jacques Barzun (God's Country and Mine) At this point, that quote is so old that I just sort of assumed Barzun must be dead by now. But I heard an interview with him the other day on NPR about his new book, From Dawn to Decadence - 500 Years of Western Cultural Life, 1500 to Present, which sounds like it will be excellent, and then, serendipitously, I stumbled upon this fairly recent book of his essays. As the title of his newer effort might lead you to assume, these essays reflect a profound concern about the direction in which modern culture is headed. Tackling topics which range from government patronage of the arts to the writing of history to the teaching of Humanities, the book is unified by the theme of decline in the West, but it ends on an upbeat note as he assumes that the seeds of the next great Civilization must even now have been sown in the root of our culture. Having taught at Columbia for over 60 years, Barzun is particularly interested in the complete hash that we have made of the academy. In Where is History Now?, he offers a devastating critique of the way modern Historians have come to focus almost entirely on not merely social history, but the social history of marginal groups, to the exclusion of great persons, big events and sweeping trends. He traces the beginnings of this problem to the Annales group in France, influenced by Durkheim and others: It was soon found that many kinds of documents existed, so far untouched and worth exploiting--county archives, private contracts, children's books, records of matriculation at colleges and universities, the police blotter in big cities, gravestones in cemeteries--a whole world of commonplace papers and relics to be organized into meanings. Such documents told nothing important individually; they had to be classified and counted. Theirs was a mass meaning, and it brought one nearer to the life of the people; it satisfied democratic feelings. One result of this search for arcania is that the history books that are produced are unreadable catalogues of stuff: History is not a piece of crockery dredged up from the Titanic; it is, first, the shipwreck, then a piece of writing. What is more, it is a piece of writing meant to be read, not merely entered on shelves and in bibliographies. By these criteria, modern man must be classed as a stranger to history; he is not eager for it nor bothered by the lack of it. The treasure hunt for artifacts seems to him a sufficient acknowledgment of the past. The other main result is that these historians end up specializing so completely in one discrete topic, even within the already unuseful field of social studies, that they lack any broader perspective. He broaches this topic again in Exeunt the Humanities, wherein he particularly decries the tendency towards overspecialization: The danger is

As We Sow, So Shall We Reap

Mr. Barzun's most recent work, From Dawn to Decadence, would be expected to and, in fact, seems to be drawing more readers to investigate the previous works of this most learned and reflective gentleman. A renaissance man in the true sense of the phrase, his mastery of a wide field of subjects, from history through grammar to baseball of all things, is remarkable. For seventy years, if I compute correctly, he has been observing mankind, pondering its ways, and reporting to us on his discoveries. There is no honor we can bestow upon him to reward him justly for the light that he has brought to the world. All we can do is read his books and marvel. On such marvelous book is The Culture We Deserve. In this tome, we are made privy to the depths of Mr. Barzun's thoughts on our wounded culture. He details, both in the larger fields of music, art, morality, and politics, and the smaller ones of language, hygiene, and our relationship to one another, just how we truly merit the state of our society. Make no mistake, this is not a Jeremiad; Mr. Barzun clearly describes how we arrived where we are and offers us a way out. Characteristic of his style, he never lapses into pessimism. He clearly describes how we may save ourselves from declining further into philistinism. The Culture We Deserve makes demands of the reader. It is not a book that can be passively read. It will provoke a response, either in agreement or dissent. It will certainly challenge all who read it on one point or another, for we all have become so oblivious to how we arrived at our present state that we often accept it without thought. However, make no mistake, Mr. Barzun will not gore your ox without offering just compensation. He makes no critical remark that he cannot defend. If he pulls down idols, he makes it very clear that they should either have been pulled down long ago or never erected at all. He does not judge so much as he gives us the knowledge to judge for ourselves. For the reader who knows of From Dawn to Decadence, but fears to attempt it due to its enormous size, The Culture We Deserve is highly recommended. It, along with The House of Intellect, and perhaps even more so, offers a wonderful introduction into Mr. Barzun's ideas, and the nature and style of his arguments. In The Culture We Deserve, the reader will become acquainted with Mr. Barzun's method of diverting the argument off into a seemingly unrelated investigation, exploring the tangent for a time, and then smoothly rejoining the original idea, leaving the reader all the richer for the excursion, reflecting not only on the original argument, but reaching for a notepad on which to record the divergence for further investigation. It is this style that makes Mr. Barzun's books so invigorating. It is recommended to all who would aspire to serious thought.