You are here:   Features > The American mind continues to close
Allan Bloom: Repelled by relativism

On December 10, 1982, a then-obscure academic from the American Midwest took to the pages of National Review magazine with a lengthy indictment of America’s intellectual class. Though this was the height of the Reagan Revolution — a heady time for the Review’s conservative editors and readers — the author had nothing to say about tax cuts or defence policy. Instead, he peppered his argument with references to Socrates and Nietzsche. A typical applause line was: “The Bible and Plutarch have ceased to be a part of the soul’s furniture.” 

Yet the piece hit a nerve. And in time, it grew into a bestselling book that made the author — Indianapolis-born philosopher and classicist Allan David Bloom — an academic celebrity.

Much of Bloom’s success no doubt was owed to his book’s inspired title, The Closing of the American Mind. But the timing was perfect, too, arriving on shelves in the fall of 1987, when political correctness was just becoming an acute force for censorship. I was a college student at the time. And reading Bloom’s book helped convince me that, no, it wasn’t just me: something really was wrong with the way my generation was being educated and politically programmed. 

Bloom was especially repelled by relativism, which he described as “the consciousness that one loves one’s own way because it is one’s own, not because it is good.” Though he was hardly the first postwar critic to abhor the fragmenting of cultural life and the marginalisation of the Western canon, Bloom went deeper with his analysis, showing how the emerging obsession with identity politics (as we now call it) left students glum and aimless — brimming with grievances, while lacking the sense of common purpose that once animated higher learning.

The author died in 1992, just before the advent of the world wide web exacerbated many of the problems he described. Social media, in particular, has reduced attention spans — making it difficult to teach students classic texts that are not immediately relevant to modern forms of self-identification. At the same time, these networks allow activists to shame heterodox ideas on a peer-to-peer basis.  

If Bloom spent a single day on Facebook or Twitter today, he would instantly recognise the “mixture of egotism and high-mindedness” that he detected among his own undergraduates. But he also would be shocked by the rigid ideological conformity that now is demanded of students on matters relating to race, gender and sexuality. The speech codes Bloom saw metastasising in the late 1980s and early 1990s have become largely unnecessary: university administrators can now rely on students to police themselves.

Unlike Bloom, I have never taught at a university. But in my capacity as newspaper and magazine editor over the last two decades, I have scouted and recruited dozens of bright twenty-somethings fresh out of journalism school and leading liberal-arts courses in Canada and the United States. In many cases, I have watched these young people struggle for a few years in the profession, and then move on.

The life of an intellectually ambitious writer has become much more difficult than it was just a single generation ago. The problem is not just that it has become harder to make a living in my field (it has), but also that, on many of the most pressing issues of our day, it has become impossible for writers to follow their true convictions, which is where the joy really lies.

As Saul Bellow wrote in his preface to The Closing of the American Mind, good writing requires that the author “be immune to the noise of history”. But thanks to social media, the noise of history is right there on a writer’s desk, buzzing with compliments and rebukes whenever you publish anything. Most young writers I meet seem so terrified by the prospect of having their work denounced as retrograde in these public forums that they hew to subjects and postures they know will attract approving comments (or, at the very least, no comments whatsoever).

Bloom described his students as being taken up with a “disdain for the ethnocentric” — an impulse that now might be more commonly described as anti-racism. As he rightly noted, this trend originated as a virtuous corrective to the “real prejudices of race, religion [and] nation” embedded in the fabric of white societies. But since Bloom’s time, the anti-racist movement has expanded vastly in scope, and now serves as the central unifying principle in the intellectual life of elite college students — far eclipsing complex (and less Tweetable) creeds such as socialism and anti-globalisation. This is why their online debate and virtue signalling now feeds almost entirely off expressions of anti-racist (or anti-sexist, or anti-transphobic) outrage. Such outrage is a precious commodity, as it provides daily affirmation that participants are engaged in prosecuting an important historical mission. Its function is social as much as political, for it is often the only thing holding these online tribes together.

This helps explain why it is now so difficult for an editor to recruit young people willing to express original views — since no one wants to write anything that gets them thrown out of a tribe they’ve inhabited, in good standing, since college, or even high school. In this respect, white writers tend to exhibit the highest levels of anxiety, since they (correctly) believe they have the most to lose if they come under any suspicion of heresy. In some cases, they will even decline offers to appear on panels, or refuse writing assignments, lest they be accused of occupying bandwidth better ceded to people of colour.

At my last job — editor-in-chief for a Canadian literary magazine — I observed this impulse being carried to almost comical extremes. In one case, I was thwarted in my attempts to commission a review of a book by an Indigenous writer — because my colleagues believed that such a book could not be properly reviewed by a white person. It had to be written by an Indigenous writer, they explained, and the review had to be positive. And so a week was spent trying to find an author of the appropriate ethnicity and outlook. None was found, and so the book was not reviewed at all. Dozens of others promising ideas died in this way.

In several cases, I observed that editors who had once enjoyed flourishing sidelines as freelance writers now had almost entirely given up on their craft. In an editorial meeting, a staffer might offer some brilliant insight that I recognised as the seed of a fine article. But if I tried to assign the piece, she would demur, for the reasons described above. It’s one of the reasons I quit my job. You can help show a person how to write. But you can’t make them want to write.

“Of all university members, humanists have the least self-confidence,” Bloom wrote. “In their heart of hearts many doubt that they have much to say. After all, most of the writers they promote can be convicted of elitism and sexism, the paramount sins of the day.” This is still true. But the crime of elitism has now expanded into the more general category of privilege, and especially white privilege. Bloom’s description of relativism — “the consciousness that one loves one’s own way because it is one’s own” — no longer applies to progressive white writers, who loathe their “own way”, which is why so many of them do not have much to say. Even black and Indigenous writers can find themselves in a straitjacket, because they are pressured (often by cynical white editors, acting on their own desire to be viewed as enlightened) to repeatedly write about issues connected to their identity. Eventually, even the most morally urgent subject will become stale to a writer if he or she writes of nothing else. 

The few glimmers of hope and energy I’ve witnessed tend to emanate from those men and women whose own personal histories serve to challenge one-dimensional theories of persecution in our society. Which brings me back to Bloom — who was Jewish and gay, and the child of social workers whose own parents escaped Europe’s murderous anti-Semitism. These are not incidental biographical details. Bloom came to the defence of traditional Western literature and philosophy without the baggage of colonialism and racial supremacism that weighs down your average gentile to the point of intellectual paralysis. And if Bloom’s surname were Smith or Jones, I’m not sure The Closing of the American Mind would have been written.

Similarly, I do not think it is a coincidence that many of the most influential and vigorous critics of liberal orthodoxy to emerge since that book’s publication also have been Jews — a list that includes Richard Bernstein, Alan Dershowitz, John Podhoretz, Jonah Goldberg, Andrew Breitbart, David Brooks, Christopher Hitchens, Charles Krauthammer, William Safire and Ben Shapiro. Since 9/11, in particular, it has disproportionately fallen to Jewish commentators (and sometimes gay men or women) to sound the alarm against the normalisation of Islamist anti-Semitism, misogyny and homophobia. If the people with the least moral standing in arts and letters are seen to be straight, lily-white WASPs, and those with the most are visible minorities and indigenous peoples, then the Jew (perhaps especially a gay Jew) falls exactly in between. 

The question of whether Jews are truly “white” or not is a semantic tangent that I will leave to others. But my own experience as a Jew is that we occupy a betwixt and between place in the marketplace of ideas. On the one hand, as Bloom’s example shows, we heirs to Maimonides, Spinoza, Freud and Einstein are bound closely enough to the Western intellectual tradition that we feel both proud and protective of it. On the other hand, we are not so saturated with colonial guilt that we are ashamed to assist in its defence. When Kipling wrote of “the white man’s burden”, and implored Washington to “send forth the best ye breed”, he was not speaking of Bloom’s grandparents.  

It was only after I left my last job, where I was the only Jew in an office of several dozen (white) gentiles, that I realised how much my religious background had contributed to the ideological gulf between me and my colleagues. This came out most clearly in editorial discussions about Canada’s Indigenous peoples. At these times, my colleagues sometimes would make sweeping remarks about all the horrors “we” had inflicted on First Nations, and the guilt “we” bore for the crimes of “our” ancestors. In these moments, I would politely remind everyone that my Russian father came to Canada (via China) as a 10-year-old, after his dispossessed family had been forced to flee not one but two communist revolutions. On my mother’s side, my Yiddish-speaking grandfather helped his own father peddle rags on the streets of Toronto’s Jewish ghetto — an occupation that left him scant time to build residential schools, or otherwise oppress Canada’s First Nations. And while I am a social liberal at heart, who accepts that all white Canadians, Jews included, should take stock of the racial privilege they enjoy in their daily interactions, I don’t appreciate being indicted for the historical crimes of British and French imperialists who looked down on Jews and Indigenous peoples in roughly equal measure.

In his foreword to The Closing of the American Mind, Bellow attacked “the commonest teaching of the civilised world in our time”, which he described as: “Tell me where you come from and I will tell you what you are.” I believe he was speaking not only as a writer, but as a Jew. For we Jews have always been drawn to universalising creeds (Marxism being the foremost example) that might allow us to escape the ghetto and pre-empt the pogrom. Our defence of Western civilisation, for all its warts and shames, is part of that. For as Bloom wrote, “The real community of man . . . is the community of those who seek the truth, of the potential knowers . . . of all men to the extent they desire to know . . . This, according to Plato, is the only real friendship, the only real common good. It is here that the contact people so desperately seek is to be found.”

Today’s generation of college students still possess a desperately felt desire to know this sense of kinship. That part of human nature hasn’t changed, and never will. But the common project that forms the basis of such friendship must amount to more than a cult of guilt and shame. In The Closing Of The American Mind, Bloom warned us of the toll that this phenomenon would take on intellectual life. Alas, the book has stood the test of time only too well.
View Full Article
Moss Reumann
November 1st, 2017
6:11 PM
This is an excellent piece of criticism, and well written. In one place, however, I think Kay gets it wrong. He writes, "no one wants to write anything that gets them thrown out of a tribe they’ve inhabited, in good standing, since college, or even high school." Logically, and based on my own behavior, it's less about the spoiling of longtime allegiances than is about maintaining the ability to publish in a wide variety of outlets in the future, given the fact that one's entire bibliography is just a few keystrokes away from an editor considering one's work. It's easy to blame reluctant writers, but keep in mind that an editor's willingness or unwillingness to consider the work of writers who have in the past expressed diverse, non-orthodox viewpoints is just as important, if not more so.

Lubomir Poliacik
October 31st, 2017
4:10 PM
I don't believe that describing Professor Allan Bloom as an "obscure academic" prior to the publication of "The Closing of the American Mind" is quite accurate. When he taught at the University of Toronto in the 1970's he was something of an academic star, with a following of devoted student "Bloomites". But more importantly, he was the most prominent expounder of the work of his former teacher, Leo Strauss. You may recall that "Sraussians" in G.W.Bush's White House were held responsible by the liberal press for the invasion of Iraq, among other things.

Sal Scilicet
October 30th, 2017
12:10 PM
“Tell me where you come from and I will tell you what you are.” … We Jews have always been drawn to universalising creeds … the real community of man … of those who seek the truth … [where] the contact people so desperately seek is to be found.” When I lived in Israel, “the land of the Jews”, the burning question was, who is a Jew? In other words, who is “the stranger within thy gates”? Namely, the “goyim” (the nations) – for whose welfare and wellbeing the Torah prescribes certain guarantees. That is to say – who, living among us, may be legally, morally, emotionally [and safely] ostracised … thereby deemed to be most certainly not “one of us”? Whenever the ‘hard problem of consciousness’ [what it “means” to be me] comes up for discussion, the question of language is always deftly circumvented. Without hesitation or disquiet the words are taken for granted as representation, “standing for” something that is somehow assumed to exist quite independent of the text. But what is one to make of “The American Mind”? The vocabulary, grammar and syntax, of any language, determines, equivocates, defines, delimits, confines and rigorously dictates what can be said and what cannot. Ever since language evolved, grammatically logical dictums nave been habitually deployed to “make sense” – logically coherent narratives, that barely resemble lived experience. When “I” say what time it “is”, “I” am stating an indisputable, albeit fleeting, fact. [The present moment “now” has no dimension.] Just one of innumerable facts, with which each speaker/writer habitually confirms “the world as it is”. A popular, inescapable conceit. “Reality” can hardly be defined as a comprehensive catalogue of facts. Hence all the familiar rhetorical conventions – happiness, time, democracy, The Universe, gravity, economics, philosophy, freedom, humanity, civilisation … Without ever having to explain what any of the words mean. Not to mention such evocative confabulations as, “mind”, “personality”, “consciousness”, “awareness”, “soul” … Such is the beguiling, indispensable utility of language, that everybody knows what gravity “is”. What time “is”. What happiness and freedom “are”. Even though no two eminently useful, precise definitions will ever be exactly alike. Of course, if language really were such a reliable means of communication, establishing “The Whole Truth”, and nothing but the real nature of “Reality” … there would have been no irresistibly lucrative need, all these years, for those lawyers, theologians and academics … not to mention all those millennia of bloodshed. Whence this reluctance to examine the ineluctable function of grammatically regimented language? As thoroughly indispensable as it undeniably is – and at once so notoriously ambiguous – this wilful refusal is truly remarkable, just to glance but once through Galileo’s glass. Has the universal ‘group-think’ as to the wholesale disparagement of all things ‘post-modern’ become so deeply ingrained as to finally render such erstwhile provocations as Bloom’s, ‘The Closing of the American Mind’ thoroughly done and dusted? The incontrovertible conventions of public discourse create the persistent illusion that if, for example, the subject is ‘happiness’, then obviously happiness not only exists somewhere outside the strict confines of vocabulary, grammar and syntax. But the thing can actually be actively ‘pursued’. Much like ‘Life and Liberty’, inalienably made freely available, for all to have and to hold. Don’t we know? “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose. But nothin’ ain’t worth nothin’, if it’s free.” Whereas, while every individual person, once legally defined and duly promulgated by the State, as a solitary, self-determined moral agent, is thus, merely by dint of the rigours of literacy, privately persuaded that “I sure-as-hell know what happiness is”, not one is able to clearly define that most illusive of qualities for a certainty, to the satisfaction of all. Ergo – “Publish and be damned.” At the very real risk of ridicule, words such as ‘consciousness’, ‘mind’ and ‘soul’ are just that, essential semantics. It seems to me part of the problem inherent to every language is that words are used to conjure – literally call into awareness – both abstract and concrete concepts alike. This invariably inspires the pervasive illusion that ‘mind’ and ‘brain’ are not only all of a piece, but also equally tangible. Suppose notions of ‘the self’, ‘consciousness’, ‘mind’ and ‘awareness’ are none other than indispensable, socio-culturally habituated, linguistically constructed figments of the imagination. Most words acquired during infancy as indisputable descriptors of experiential phenomena, such as ‘dog’ and ‘ball’, engender a deep-seated conventional belief that all words describe a grammatically signified experiential reality, whose ordinary apprehension is simply assumed to be common to all. Meanwhile, intensely private experience is messy, irrational and illogical. Which, by its very ephemeral nature is quite literally inaccessible to the inflexible discipline of polite discourse. Instead of giving an accurate account of what really happened and what it was really like, each individual is obliged to construct a coherent narrative, in compliance with the ruling conventions of grammar and syntax, which is then understood as ‘history and ‘reality’. Thus, common expressions such as, ‘changing my mind’, ‘going out of my mind’ and ‘The Closing of the American Mind’, create the illusion that ‘the mind’ is an experiential ‘fact of life’. And therefore routinely taken for granted as such.

Alex Kudera
October 30th, 2017
12:10 PM
Based on the author's ideas concerning Jewish writers as "the most influential and vigorous critics of liberal orthodoxy," I'm rebranding as Jewish and inviting critics to read Fight for Your Long and Auggie's Revenge in this tradition.

Post your comment

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.