The Closing of the American Mind

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

In one of my classes we are doing a semester long discussion and study on the book "The Closing of the American Mind." It's written in the late 80's and at first glance seems to really just be like very annoying. You know like those memes of old people complaining about the current times. Well it feels like that's what the book is about. Allan Bloom, a University of Chicago professor, complaining in a little less than 400 pages about how American universities are in le toilet. He sounds like a pompous and pretentious man whose book gets cringe worthy at times.

Now am I going to sit here in and lie and say that I've read all the chapters up to where we are now? No. But I do go to class and the professor does a pretty good job on explaining each assigned reading section. Pretty much, and will try to explain with the best of my mediocre abilities and frail understanding of the text LOL, Bloom says that the American university system, especially in the social sciences, is no longer as life changing as it should be. It's just where students get trained for careers, it is essentially just an extension of the market. He believes it's supposed to be somewhere where you can explore ideas and ask questions like "what is man?" and "what is the purpose?" He wants to bring back the Socratic method to the classroom. Now, philosophy is almost non existent in the universities. He says that if the university does not reflect Socrates and follow his method and legacy, then it is like Church with out God. It doesn't make sense. .

He blames German philosophy quite a bit for bringing a lot of these ideas to the US. He, only naturally, puts classic philosophers on a pedestal and praises classical music while absolutely criticizing rock and roll and popular culture to the upmost degree. He places music under the drug category, says it creates false communities, is part of the commercial culture you think you're against (lol, guilty), creates this euphoria that you exhaust in your youth that then leaves you high and dry in adulthood (did I just get depressed writing this). Seems he really embodies the cranky old man upset at the youth "obsessed" with technology and not having the same values and morals as "back in the day", afraid of change. We had this conversation in class, but the professor shut down all our thoughts on Bloom being that cranky old man.

Again, he blames universities for instilling the idea of relativism, multiculturalism, the idea of a being a "global citizen". He says concepts like these derail and dilute democracy. Since we start to believe everything is relative and everyone is "right" in their culture, there is no room for an ongoing, personal journey to find the absolute truth. Students just accept everything blindly and live their lives being "nice." Don't say the wrong thing, agree to disagree, and therefore education is replaced by self comfort because they don't want to take the extra effort to think critically, debate, or clash with someone else. According to him, under multiculturalism you are under the impression that you are openminded, but it actually realizes the opposite since you have no willingness to learn. This leads to an inability to be a good citizen since we are all sheep🐏  in a herd.

"Questions that must be faced if one is to live a serious life: reason-revelation, freedom-necessity, democracy-aristocracy, good-evil, body-soul, self other, city-man, eternity-time, being-nothing. . . . . A serious life means being fully aware of the alternatives, thinking about them with all the intensity one brings to bear on life-and-death questions, in full recognition that every choice is a great risk with necessary consequences that are hard to bear." Bloom

In part three of his book he reflects on Tocqueville's ideas of "Democratic Intellectual Life." Tocqueville considers "Enslavement to Public Opinion" a great democratic danger. Democracy says that every man has his own rational, well thought, opinion of all the issues. Unfortunately, because of what is mentioned in the paragraphs above, we are unable to think for ourselves and because in politics you have to reach consensus sometimes you have to abandon your own thoughts (unless they are very strong, challenging opinions), and join the majority. As Tocqueville continues, he says the majority will always win and that tyranny of the majority is an even greater threat than physical oppression of the minority. This is because it breaks your spirit, your inner will. If you aren't part of the majority you face isolation and we all know how powerful being unpopular is. You're shun and ostracized and I think that it's a really powerful tool in in self destruction. He goes on saying that the U.S. is a very conformist nation, there isn't a lot of room for discussion and therefore Americans aren't aware of the alternatives and don't seek them. My professor said something funny about America being the land of opinion polls, it's an example of Americans being highly dependent on others to do the thinking for us.

In the beginning of the semester I was not very happy with my professor at all. I felt he was making racist and xenophobic remarks. I was uncomfortable at some points to say the least and even my classmates and I made eye contact with some of the comments he made including one from a student that seemed like the professor encouraged. So it was ironic when I was thinking of him as a professor and what others might have thought of him. I decided to search him on ratemyprofessor (if you're not familiar it is a site where students write online reviews for professors they've had). There were some poor reviews, but those that were positive really praised him. Comments like what an amazing professor he was, how his class should be a requirement, thought provoking class, "greatest mind on campus", you get it. And you know, I thought about it more and came to the conclusion that he was pretty intellectually stimulating and although sometimes I don't agree with the things he says  it's because he's teaching the books on par with what the authors would say and plays the devils advocate to foster discussion and only accepts your rebuttal if it is properly backed up (I've seen him shoot them down pretty savagely).  This made me laugh thinking of how ironic it was that I was essentially reading other's opinions and using those to help me come to my "own" conclusions of my professor. AKA Tocqueville's warning about the public opinion. Well the enslavement really, the complete dependence on it, because it can't be so devestating to weigh your opinions against other's and see their points of view and reasons thereof. I don't think I am threatening democracy for seeing my professor in a new light. 😜

I forgot to mention that in the beginning of Part Three when Bloom introduces Tocqueville, he makes this observation of his students reactions.

"In my experience, students at first are bored by Tocqueville's account of
the American mind, but, if they are really made to pay attention, they are
finally riveted and alarmed by it. No one likes to believe that what he can
see is limited by circumstances, no matter how easily he recognizes this
fact in others. Tocqueville"

I think this resonated with me, because this is how I feel about this book (to a certain degree). Sometimes you start off a little stubborn and when you hear something you don't like you're like *eye roll*. But give it a chance and as he says, you can become alarmed by it. I don't agree with all of what Bloom says so far, but I do concur that there is something missing from the university. A more theoretical approach to learning, to think on higher more complex levels, and work to really think deeply on your ideals as a person. I know that I myself couldn't think or create on these levels by any means. But that is what the university should be about, to help enrich and promote individual thought. It reminds me of what another professor said this morning about him not wanting us to be "unwashed heathens" meaning being a part of the mass ignorance. If we have a foundation of being able to think critically on theories and classical questions, it can overall further our understanding of politics and current events and help us make the proper decisions on where we should stand and how to act.

When I began my university career, I wasn't sure what my end career goal was and I still don't. What I did know going in was that I wanted to study international affairs for what would be taught in the courses needed to complete the program. I feel I still haven't reached a level where I am comfortable with expressing the content even though I've enjoyed the classes. Though I do acknowledge that half of it is not the universities fault, but my own for my own lack of effort in delving into the information. For the social sciences, It also can't be all philosophy and theory since at the end of the day, we do have to enter the work force one way or another. Maybe other students are there for just that, but is it because they have not understood what else universities can be offering or according to Bloom, what their purpose really is?

There is so much more the book expands on up until the point that we have read, but this is really all I have the time (and mental capacity) for. In the beginning of the semester I began with some pretty negative perceptions of my professor and our book author, Allan Bloom. Slowly as our class reads and discusses more and more what Bloom believes about the American university system (and culture), the more some concepts catch my attention. Still, I will say that some of the points Bloom makes I just can't see eye to eye with.
I am excited to finish the rest of the book and hear what else he has to say and how relevant his observations from the 80's are today.
Hopefully I can make a follow up post on my thoughts at the end of the book.


PS. Is me writing my first unnecessarily lengthy blog post about a concept in class mean that my professor is doing his job?

You Might Also Like