Scan barcode
dusang's review
2.0
Finished: In my review of Empire of Illusion I suggested reading this book instead of that rambling, pointless diatribe. In rereading Jacoby, although still better than Empire, there are parts where this sounds more like an old white lady lamenting the decline of society and comparing it to the good old days of her childhood than the reasoned historical narrative I remember. I'm particularly disappointed at how little was updated to include and reflect the last ten years, as 2008 seems like a lifetime ago when talking about a culture of infotainment, distraction, or junk thought. Although what she does include of the last ten years is some of the least supported, most judgmental writing in the book, where her knowledge, study, understanding, and appreciation for the monumental shifts in society and culture are so weak as to be non-existent.
Half-way point: I read this about ten years ago, when the first edition was released. I remember liking it at the time but reading it now I'm surprised at how little of it I actually remembered. Also, I'm a bit more skeptical of it -- I remember thinking that I didn't know many of the historical/cultural references she was making when I first read it but chalked that up to my own inadequate knowledge of mid-century American history. Now it seems rather tone deaf, I honestly don't know who her intended audience is except, perhaps, people exactly like her, which fundamentally only adds to the fractured and polarized discourse she's lamenting. Also, I'm disappointed at how little has been updated to include the last ten years. Hopefully there will be more added content in later chapters.
Half-way point: I read this about ten years ago, when the first edition was released. I remember liking it at the time but reading it now I'm surprised at how little of it I actually remembered. Also, I'm a bit more skeptical of it -- I remember thinking that I didn't know many of the historical/cultural references she was making when I first read it but chalked that up to my own inadequate knowledge of mid-century American history. Now it seems rather tone deaf, I honestly don't know who her intended audience is except, perhaps, people exactly like her, which fundamentally only adds to the fractured and polarized discourse she's lamenting. Also, I'm disappointed at how little has been updated to include the last ten years. Hopefully there will be more added content in later chapters.
hollyfromthebigsky's review against another edition
3.0
I was quite excited to read this book, as I've been a fan of Jacoby's writing in the past, and find the topic to be timely and important. The discussions about elitism, intellectuals, and class divisions that were prominent over the past year in the political landscape made me consider the book with a hopeful perspective - while Obama was widely criticized for his intellectualism, we did, as a people united, elect him into office.
Unfortunately, I found one aspect of the book to be quite disappointing. While I think that she made a number of important points, I found her arguments undermined by a broad, un-nuanced generalization of the conservative intellectual establishment. Her unwillingness to engage in a straightforward discussion of how the conservative and liberal groups actually pursue and promote intellectualism made it difficult for me to take some of her arguments seriously. An excerpt provides an example of how she engaged this topic:
"By 1980 popular identification of intellectualism with the left was such that the right-wing intellectuals who provided much of the ideology for the Reagan administration were able to advance the fiction - so important first o Reagan and....to the election of Bush the younger - that the so-called elites consist entirely of liberals opposed to old-fashioned American values of traditional religion, unquestioning patriotism, and pulling oneself up by one's own bootstraps. Conservative intellectuals mastered an art that liberals never did : they somehow managed to present themselves as an aggrieved minority even while feasting, as liberals had during the Kennedy administration, at the government trough."
I find this to be an inaccurate, and a gross exaggeration. I don't believe that anyone could actually make the argument that The Heritage Foundation, or the American Enterprise Institute, are not obviously intellectually comparatives to the Brookings Institution. She consistently used aggressive language that did not, in my mind, present a fair characterization of both sides of the intellectual/political divide.
However, in her discussion of politics and intellectualism, I do think that she makes an important point. Leaving aside the intelligence of President George W. Bush, as I don't wish to engage on that topic here, I'd like to include the entire quote here:
"If Bush's election was not a measure of conscious anti-intellectualism on the part of voters, it was certainly a measure of the public's indifference to demonstrable mental acuity and knowledge as standards for the presidency. In this context, it is important to note that most members of the media rarely raise questions, even in a roundabout way, about the intellect of a major party presidential candidate - much less about a man who actually occupies the Oval Office. A president may be described as stubborn, or as impatient, or as a sexual libertine - even, on rare occasions, as a liar - but it would be unthinkable for "objective" reporters, in print or on television, to bluntly raise the question: 'Is this man smart enough to be in charge of the country?' It is a question that ought to be asked openly about every man and woman who seeks high office...This is not to say that the smartest boy or girl in the class would necessarily make the best president, but that there ought to be a higher threshold of intellect, as well as a higher standard of cultural and scientific literacy, than that currently required for political candidates." (Jacoby, p. 285-286).
Two items stand out for me: first, that the American people can be described as indifferent to the capabilities and qualities of their primary leader and representative; and secondly, that the presidency demands not only intelligence, but cultural and scientific literacy. To ground this discussion in a timely issue, let us consider the debate between evolution and creationism.
A scientifically literate President could be expected to be familiar with the underpinnings of the scientific argument (evolution) - to understand the fundamentals of the theory, how it has been developed, a general sense of the current state of related research, and the overall scientific background to be able to engage with the topic in a meaningful way.
On the other hand, a culturally literate President could be expected to have studied the history of the debate; to know about the Scopes trial, its main participants, and its outcome(s); to understand the importance of creationism to those who accept it as a primary explanation for their world; and to see how this fits into the cultural landscape of America - both for those who support teaching evolution and creationism side by side, and for the individuals who adamantly oppose such a structure.
Finally, we could expect our President to understand how any action, promotion, or legislation regarding this issue could impact our global relationships and the future of our society. Do we think it is too much to ask this type of literacy from our selected leader? Jacoby seems to argue that, compared to our parents and grandparents, we do - and instead of aspiring to the best, we aim for the "lowest common denominator".
Aside from the political discussion, I found that Jacoby provided a solid history of intellectualism in America over the past century - from the development of a "middlebrow culture" which made fine art, literature, and music accessible to a greater part of the American population; to the impact of television and the internet on our attention spans and communities. It makes me sad to learn, as she states, that 40% of Americans do not read books; parents only read to their children an average of 40 minutes a day; that Americans have such poor esteem for geography, foreign languages, and global news; etc. I was also fascinated to read all of the negative studies on the "Baby Einstein" and other such products (obviously I'm not a parent yet).
I don't think that I would recommend this highly for the general reader. Much of what she says seems fairly self-evident, and I particularly find that she does not contribute much that is new to the discussion of technological advances and how these engage the intellect. In fact, I find her negative perception of technology a weak component of her entire argument, as I believe that it indicates an incomplete understanding of the web-based world. She argues early on that in the first half of the 20th century, Americans aspired to a higher standard, wishing to imitate and bring to a more accessible level those intellectual luxuries formerly enjoyed by the rich: fine art, music, literature, etc. How is the use of the internet as a delivery mechanism different than the Book of the Month Club that first launched literature into the homes of many middle-class Americans? If I am able, via the internet, to listen to a podcast or view a video of a performance that I would otherwise not have access to, how then can we throw the baby out with the bathwater and proclaim that technology is leading to the destruction of intellectual engagement?
3/5 stars for a solid read, but not highly recommended.
Unfortunately, I found one aspect of the book to be quite disappointing. While I think that she made a number of important points, I found her arguments undermined by a broad, un-nuanced generalization of the conservative intellectual establishment. Her unwillingness to engage in a straightforward discussion of how the conservative and liberal groups actually pursue and promote intellectualism made it difficult for me to take some of her arguments seriously. An excerpt provides an example of how she engaged this topic:
"By 1980 popular identification of intellectualism with the left was such that the right-wing intellectuals who provided much of the ideology for the Reagan administration were able to advance the fiction - so important first o Reagan and....to the election of Bush the younger - that the so-called elites consist entirely of liberals opposed to old-fashioned American values of traditional religion, unquestioning patriotism, and pulling oneself up by one's own bootstraps. Conservative intellectuals mastered an art that liberals never did : they somehow managed to present themselves as an aggrieved minority even while feasting, as liberals had during the Kennedy administration, at the government trough."
I find this to be an inaccurate, and a gross exaggeration. I don't believe that anyone could actually make the argument that The Heritage Foundation, or the American Enterprise Institute, are not obviously intellectually comparatives to the Brookings Institution. She consistently used aggressive language that did not, in my mind, present a fair characterization of both sides of the intellectual/political divide.
However, in her discussion of politics and intellectualism, I do think that she makes an important point. Leaving aside the intelligence of President George W. Bush, as I don't wish to engage on that topic here, I'd like to include the entire quote here:
"If Bush's election was not a measure of conscious anti-intellectualism on the part of voters, it was certainly a measure of the public's indifference to demonstrable mental acuity and knowledge as standards for the presidency. In this context, it is important to note that most members of the media rarely raise questions, even in a roundabout way, about the intellect of a major party presidential candidate - much less about a man who actually occupies the Oval Office. A president may be described as stubborn, or as impatient, or as a sexual libertine - even, on rare occasions, as a liar - but it would be unthinkable for "objective" reporters, in print or on television, to bluntly raise the question: 'Is this man smart enough to be in charge of the country?' It is a question that ought to be asked openly about every man and woman who seeks high office...This is not to say that the smartest boy or girl in the class would necessarily make the best president, but that there ought to be a higher threshold of intellect, as well as a higher standard of cultural and scientific literacy, than that currently required for political candidates." (Jacoby, p. 285-286).
Two items stand out for me: first, that the American people can be described as indifferent to the capabilities and qualities of their primary leader and representative; and secondly, that the presidency demands not only intelligence, but cultural and scientific literacy. To ground this discussion in a timely issue, let us consider the debate between evolution and creationism.
A scientifically literate President could be expected to be familiar with the underpinnings of the scientific argument (evolution) - to understand the fundamentals of the theory, how it has been developed, a general sense of the current state of related research, and the overall scientific background to be able to engage with the topic in a meaningful way.
On the other hand, a culturally literate President could be expected to have studied the history of the debate; to know about the Scopes trial, its main participants, and its outcome(s); to understand the importance of creationism to those who accept it as a primary explanation for their world; and to see how this fits into the cultural landscape of America - both for those who support teaching evolution and creationism side by side, and for the individuals who adamantly oppose such a structure.
Finally, we could expect our President to understand how any action, promotion, or legislation regarding this issue could impact our global relationships and the future of our society. Do we think it is too much to ask this type of literacy from our selected leader? Jacoby seems to argue that, compared to our parents and grandparents, we do - and instead of aspiring to the best, we aim for the "lowest common denominator".
Aside from the political discussion, I found that Jacoby provided a solid history of intellectualism in America over the past century - from the development of a "middlebrow culture" which made fine art, literature, and music accessible to a greater part of the American population; to the impact of television and the internet on our attention spans and communities. It makes me sad to learn, as she states, that 40% of Americans do not read books; parents only read to their children an average of 40 minutes a day; that Americans have such poor esteem for geography, foreign languages, and global news; etc. I was also fascinated to read all of the negative studies on the "Baby Einstein" and other such products (obviously I'm not a parent yet).
I don't think that I would recommend this highly for the general reader. Much of what she says seems fairly self-evident, and I particularly find that she does not contribute much that is new to the discussion of technological advances and how these engage the intellect. In fact, I find her negative perception of technology a weak component of her entire argument, as I believe that it indicates an incomplete understanding of the web-based world. She argues early on that in the first half of the 20th century, Americans aspired to a higher standard, wishing to imitate and bring to a more accessible level those intellectual luxuries formerly enjoyed by the rich: fine art, music, literature, etc. How is the use of the internet as a delivery mechanism different than the Book of the Month Club that first launched literature into the homes of many middle-class Americans? If I am able, via the internet, to listen to a podcast or view a video of a performance that I would otherwise not have access to, how then can we throw the baby out with the bathwater and proclaim that technology is leading to the destruction of intellectual engagement?
3/5 stars for a solid read, but not highly recommended.
pezski's review against another edition
4.0
An excellent and timely book on the decline of intellectualism in the USA, which is also relevant to the rest of the developed world. While I personally believe that Jacoby overplays her hand in the latter chapters on the malign influence of screen culture (the ubiquity of TV and now computers), the thrust of her argument is well written and undeniable. If we do not respect intellectualism and aspire to it for ourselves and our children, if we do not educate ourselves by reading broadly rather than accepting TV soundbites and unfounded weblog and editorial opinions and if we do not insist that our schools, colleges and universities teach rigorous thinking which we back up ourselves with the examples we give our children, we risk being manipulated by advertising, pseudo-science and self-serving politicians and, in the very worst case, risk the very values and achievements of our society.
rdebner's review against another edition
4.0
Jacoby does a fine job of tracing U.S. intellectual history as a means to explaining where we are now. The "dumbing down" of American culture and education is not news, but I think that Jacoby's framing of that end result is. This is not to say that I always agree with her. As much as I feel the pull to "culture conservation" (which does raise the question "Whose culture?"), it did gall me somewhat that Jacoby dismisses multiculturalism and the gains to be had from reading from a broader canon. She dismisses many fields of area or cultural studies (women's studies, African-American studies, etc.) as being somewhat unworthy of being disciplines of study. However, it serves her argument -- that people know so little of the basics (U.S. history, the fundamentals of science and math, how our government functions) because education has gone off in so many different directions and been hindered by teaching to the test, which is necessitated by the current culture of performance-based education.
She also does a fine job in outlining how conservatives have essentially outmaneuvered liberals in the culture wars and how "intellectual" has once again become a dirty word. I found myself nodding along at times, and I learned a lot. This book would be a fine companion, I think, to George Lakoff's work.
She also does a fine job in outlining how conservatives have essentially outmaneuvered liberals in the culture wars and how "intellectual" has once again become a dirty word. I found myself nodding along at times, and I learned a lot. This book would be a fine companion, I think, to George Lakoff's work.
justins52books's review against another edition
2.0
Too many anecdotes for me. The concept of, "it was like this when I was young and now that it's not like this, things are worse," irritates me even when I agree with the basic crux of the argument (which I do in the case of this book). This concept is the very reason that, while eligible, I do not belong to the VFW.
sondosia's review against another edition
4.0
I was SO close to giving this five stars. I learned a lot and laughed out loud at many points while reading it. However, Jacoby's knee-jerk and entirely unskeptical condemnation of everything from rock music to young-adult novels to short(er) magazine articles to cell phones to blogs to TV shows eventually started to bug me. She provided no evidence for why valuing things like classical music and fancy words over modern music and less-fancy words automatically makes you a more "reasonable" person. I thought this would be a book about the increasing mistrust of science, knowledge, and reality itself (and to some extent it was), but I definitely didn't sign up to get a jeremiad about today's youth and their musical/literary choices.
Further, Jacoby seems to believe that "experts" in very different fields, such as literary criticism and hard science, are equivalent and should all be respected. Scientists, yes, because you can't really just have your own "opinion" on whether or not global temperatures are rising or whether or not vaccines cause autism. But critics of music, art, and literature are honestly mostly full of crap, and I'm surprised that Jacoby equates the fact that people no longer trust these self-important "experts" with the fact that people don't trust climate scientists and doctors. While these may be different branches of the same tree, there's just no equivocating between these two things. One type of distrust is causing massive environmental degradation and needless illness and death; the other is causing people to, uh, form their own opinions on books and music. Big deal.
Anyway, none of that takes away from the quality of Jacoby's thinking and writing. It just bothered me.
Further, Jacoby seems to believe that "experts" in very different fields, such as literary criticism and hard science, are equivalent and should all be respected. Scientists, yes, because you can't really just have your own "opinion" on whether or not global temperatures are rising or whether or not vaccines cause autism. But critics of music, art, and literature are honestly mostly full of crap, and I'm surprised that Jacoby equates the fact that people no longer trust these self-important "experts" with the fact that people don't trust climate scientists and doctors. While these may be different branches of the same tree, there's just no equivocating between these two things. One type of distrust is causing massive environmental degradation and needless illness and death; the other is causing people to, uh, form their own opinions on books and music. Big deal.
Anyway, none of that takes away from the quality of Jacoby's thinking and writing. It just bothered me.