Plaid Doublethink

Professor J,

One more tiny bit about literature and then I do promise to move on, though you have consoled me about my wallowing in this chapter by not wanting our readers to miss all of the treasure on p. 97. I cannot help but think what a disservice is done to the authors Hedges lists and many others. Great writers hope not only to arouse the sleeping generation around them, but to send those words like arrows into the future to be read by those who come after they're gone. Sinclair who paints for us the stench, disgust, and hopelessness of the meat packing industry at the turn of the century and Dickens who hoped to use his words as daggers to pierce even the coldest, hardest heart would be angry and saddened, I imagine, that their work has been reduced to being "mined for obscure trivia and irrelevant data."


In How To Read a Book (which we continue to recommend to the reader) Adler and Doren outline how literature as an "escape" is a better choice than most other things: "If we must escape from reality, it should be to a deeper, or greater reality. This is the reality of our inner life, or our own unique vision of the world. To discover this reality makes us happy; the experience is deeply satisfying to some part of ourselves we do not ordinarily touch." (p.206)


C.S. Lewis said that "We read to know we are not alone." (I suspect this is also why we write--is there anyone else who will understand us?) Literature is supposed to stir something deep in us, connect us, and in the cases of the works Hedges mentions, present a new and uncomfortable reality and thus, rouse the reader to action. It doesn't take much imagination to see how the current education establishment would be more interested in steering students AWAY from thinking those kinds of thoughts. Quoting John Ralston Saul (who previously called these people illiterate): "In a corporatist society there is no serious need for traditional censorship or burning,' Saul writes, 'although there are regular cases. It is as if our language itself is responsible for our inability to identify and act upon reality."


He depicts an Orwellian nightmare in khaki and plaid engaging in doublethink behind stone walls: "These institutions feed students, no matter how mediocre, the comforting reassurance that they are there because they are not only the best but they are entitled to the best." In reference to George W. Bush, Hedges writes, (he) exemplifies the legions of self-centered, spoiled, intellectually limited and wealthy elitists churned out by places like Andover, Yale, and Harvard. Bush was like the rest of his caste, propelled forward by his money and his connections.The real purpose of these schools is to perpetuate their own. They do this even as they pretend to embrace the ideology of the common man, trumpet diversity on campus, and pose as a meritocracy. The public commitment to egalitarianism alongside the private nurturing of elitism creates a bizarre schizophrenia." (98)


 Though the author entitled this chapter The Illusion of Wisdom he lays out a compelling case in it, that for the elites attending ivy league schools what they may indeed have is an illusion of being educated. Collegiate ambiance does not a thoughtful person make, as he points out: "There's a certain kind of student at these schools who falls in love with the mystique and prestige of his own education."  They remind me of people who are in love with the idea of being in love but less so with long term commitment or the compromise necessary for a lasting relationship. Hedges quotes Elyse Graham who describes what this illusion of education looks like: "This is the guy who treats his time at Princeton as a scavenger hunt for Princetoniana and Princeton nostalgia: How many famous professors can I collect?' and so on. And he comes away with not only all these props for his sense of being elect, but also with the smoothness that seems to indicate wide learning." 

The illusion of "wide learning" is surely at the expense of depth of knowledge and intellectual curiosity. Of course, the facade is the thing.  


I did run across a glimmer of hope this week. For our readers who may still be confused about exactly what it is that the Occupy Wall Street protesters are concerned about, this video from the Occupy Harvard Teach-In may be of some help: Why is the U.S. F'ed Up?   So a small "rebellion" at Princeton, an Occupy Harvard movement...as you say, perhaps it will grow...


A note about your history paragraph: Everything you said cannot be overstated. When creating a curriculum for my children I designed it around history. Every single subject can be woven in by studying what was happening at a specific time in a particular place. Total immersion in a period sparks the imagination and links people, events, scientific discoveries, leaders, literature, geography, art, architecture, and anything else covered in a way that makes it stick. Biographies are the best "textbooks" early on. In high school and college the details can be filled in but only after all those delicious connections have been made and a life long curiosity instilled. Hmm...so hard to measure on those pesky standardized tests, though.