Thursday, April 30, 2009

Allan Bloom on Nietzsche

In 1983 Allan Bloom gave a lecture at Boston College on the importance of Nietzsche in American society. Bloom focused his lecture on how Nietzsche language has become integrated into all aspects of American life. Without knowing the philosophy taxi drivers, janitors, and etc. can be heard using the dark language of Nietzsche. He makes a joke that all the students that enter his office having psychotic breakdowns all start quoting Nietzsche. Bloom is most interested in how America has managed to completely morph Nietzsche's dark viewpoints on the modern democratic man to fit into the American ideals. The Deconstructionism of Nietzsche has allowed America to make his idea of Nihilism into a way to happiness. Americans say to believe in his theory of the chaos unconscious mind but also believe that science can understand the unconscious which is a complete contradiction to Nietzsche's philosophy. The lecture was given 5 years before he published The Closing of the American Mind but many of the points that he would further explore and define are brought up in the lecture. Bloom often refers to his students no longer having any really opinions or beliefs. They esteem to abstract morals, feel what they are told to feel, and do not question what is going on around them. Bloom often brings up his enjoyment of bringing up questions or assigning readings purely to gage the reactions it causes within the students. He has slowly witnessed the bow within us that is strung together by the conflicting ideals of Christianity and Classical Greeks allowing man to shot beyond what he know now disappear within his students. The lecture is very interesting but rather long so you will need to have some free time to listen to it. 



Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Whose Dome Is It Anyway?



http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/1996/4/1996_4_28.shtml

In the article "Whose Dome is it Anyway?" Alex Soojung-Kim Pang explores the duality of Buckminster Fuller's Geodesic dome. While Fuller is well known for his "Spaceship Earth" ideals of sustainability and environmentalism, and his dome is often associated with communes or other types of alternative housing, his Geodesic dome has firm roots in the military. Though Fuller was a liberal leaning, environmentalist, he felt his working with Marine Corps could help spread the dome as "a tool for victory in both war and peace, a high-tech product for combat areas that could also be made into mass-produced factories, power systems, schools, and hospitals and parachuted into friendly but impoverished Third World countries to create First World industrial powers overnight." Intriguing to see the wide variety of roles the geodesic dome has taken on in the US.


Additionally:
http://www.thirteen.org/sundayarts/buckminster-fuller/146
Very interesting video that touches on Richard Buckminster Fuller's life and career. It contains lots of different seemingly credibly people speaking about Fuller and his work, as well as several clips of Bucky himself talking. Doesn't go into a great deal of depth, but provides interesting overview of his career as well as many images of his work.

Ludwig Wittgenstein.

While not technically an American, he was brought up in class, and I am therefore going to assume he is fair game. Ludwig Wittgenstein was a fascinating thinker and a prodigy by all standards. His thoughts on language are shockingly complicated because they are so eerily simple--language unnecessarily complicates things. In class, we mentioned his idea of the "fruit fly in the bottle;" in this scenario, we are the fruit fly, and language is the bottle, though which we are forced to see the rest of the world in a warped way that is particular to the bottle. It is, of course, undeniable that although language brings us together as a means of communication, it is a hindrance in that we must label things in order to communicate. Wittgenstein, through this argument, is able to belittle philosophy as being almost entirely irrelevant, based solely on a misunderstanding of language. After grappling with the idea for a while, I came to realize that he was right--philosophers endlessly debate the meaning of life, love, happiness, and power, discussions which would all be pointless if we were able to settle on a universal and truthful definition of each of those words.
Derek Jarman's 1993 film Wittgenstein is a thought-provoking medley of short sketches which show Wittgenstein at many different stages of his life, and follow the trajectory of his philosophy of linguistics, among other of his many intellectual triumphs. While it is rather long and extremely biographical, the sketches of Wittgenstein at Cambridge are useful in attemptig to understand the specifics of his philosophy, and how we should interact with it.


Susan Sontag: Camp Art and Postmodernism

by Katherine Hayes


American intellectual and author Susan Sontag was born in New York City in 1933. Sontag began writing at a time in American history when high and low class was converging. The political and intellectual climate of the 1960’s and 1970’s allowed her to cultivate her ideas and demonstrated her talent for addressing the social changes of the time. This time period reflected a change in American culture and thought. The radicalization of the college students and protest of the Vietnam War allowed for a more liberal media. Even during these more liberal times Sontag came under criticism for a visit to North Vietnam. Her sympathetic portrayal of the North Vietnamese people earned her criticism from groups that supported the war. Similarly, Sontag earned criticism after publishing her views on the September 11th attacks. During her career as an intellectual and writer Sontag became a kind of celebrity. The cultural climate of New York City at this time introduced Sontag to the leading intellectuals of the world at this time. Sontag was educated at the University of Chicago and Harvard. It was at the University of Chicago that she met her husband, Philip Rieff. Sontag and Rieff divorced in 1958 after the birth of their son David. It may have been because of her marriage and child that Sontag’s career did not begin until she was thirty. Her career began with a work of fiction entitled The Benefactor. Although Sontag is mainly thought of as an essayist, she thought of herself primarily as a writer of fiction. One of Sontag’s most famous works is her collection of essays entitled Against Interpretation, published in 1966. This collection was enormously popular around the world. Sontag offered a new way of viewing art that strayed from the traditional interpretation. She believed that people needed to focus on the individual art and its contents rather then the usual interpretations of high art. This allowed for the appreciation of “lower class” forms of art. Sontag focused on what the art was rather than focusing on what the art meant. Sontag’s criticism of the way people viewed art is perhaps her most defining and popular idea. Although Susan Sontag died in December 2004, her ideas survive in today’s culture. 1

In 1964 Sontag published Notes on Camp in the Partesian Review. This essay has become one of her best-known pieces of work. It is contained in her collection of essays, Against Interpretation. Sontag centers her argument around fifty-eight bullet points. Each bullet point can be seen as mini-theses about camp. In the essay Sontag gives new meaning to the term camp. As a result of her essay, Sontag helped to make the appreciation of camp socially acceptable.

Sontag defines camp by stating, “Camp is a certain mode of aestheticism. It is one way of seeing the world as an aesthetic phenomenon. That way, the way of Camp, is not in terms of beauty, but in terms of the degree of artifice.”2 Sontag’s definition of camp and the essay itself brought the appreciation of camp into mainstream thought. Liam Kennedy states, “In the culturally saturated, affluent society camp offers a survival of style. Camp is not mass culture, rather it is an aesthetic lens through which to view mass culture, and a highly discriminating lens at that.”3 Before this essay appreciation of camp art was almost nonexistent. A person who enjoyed camp art would be ridiculed by their peers for their poor taste in art. However, with this essay camp the appreciation of art as a legitimate art form. Sontag bases much of her argument on personal taste. Notes on Camp also had a profound effect on the careers of many artists and filmmakers, most notably Andy Warhol.




His campy style of art became socially acceptable and gained mass appeal after the publication of this essay. Today, Warhol’s art continues to be one of the defining examples of camp. In addition to addressing the tastes of all people, Sontag also addressed the campy tastes of gay men. She states “ 51. The peculiar relation between Camp taste and homosexuality has to be explained. While it’s not true that Camp taste is homosexual taste, there is no doubt a peculiar affinity and overlap…So, not all homosexuals have Camp taste. But homosexuals, by and large, constitute the vanguard and the most articulate audience of Camp.”4 This essay was written during a time of sexual revolution in the 1960’s. Sontag sees the gay men of this time, especially in New York City, being one of the most important groups in the camp art world. While the appreciation of camp art is not shared by all people of this group, Sontag helped to make camp art an important part of culture.5


In her essay Sontag gives the reader some examples of what she thinks is camp.

4. Random examples of items which are part of the canon of camp:

Zuleika Dobson

Tiffany lamps

Scopitone films

The Brown Derby restaurant on Sunset Boulevard in LA


The Enquirer, headlines and stories

Aubrey Beardsley drawings

Swan Lake

Bellini's operas

Visconti's direction of Salome and 'Tis Pity She's a Whore

certain turn-of-the-century picture postcards

Schoedsack's King Kong


the Cuban pop singer La Lupe

Lynn Ward's novel in woodcuts, God's Man

the old Flash Gordon comics

women's clothes of the twenties (feather boas, fringed and beaded dresses, etc.)

the novels of Ronald Firbank and Ivy Compton-Burnett

stag movies seen without lust6



The idea of postmodernism developed during the 1970’s. The turmoil of the 1960’s had led to a redevelopment of modern culture. Postmodernism was developed as a reaction to modernism. Elements of postmodernism are most often seen in art, architecture, and literature. Camp is an important part of postmodern culture. Angela McRobbie states “…since the mid-1960’s camp has also provided a momentum for the creation of postmodern culture, where the boundaries of high and low art are irrevocably blurred and where camp detaches itself from the subcultural world of the gay scene and enters into mainstream, roaming free in the field of popular entertainment, while retaining an affectionate attachment to gay culture.”7 Sontag’s essay on camp is an important piece of postmodern culture. One of the main points of this essay is that it is not important why a person views something as art. The persons individual choice in taste is important to postmodernists. However, postmodernists do not need to see art as a part of the larger picture. They are able to look at art for what it is itself and not for the message it is trying to send society. Postmodernists do not look at the big picture as a whole; rather they look at many small things that comprise the larger picture. Susan Sontag is an important part of postmodernism. Although the term developed after her essay Notes on Camp it was an ideal way of describing Sontag’s views.8



This video is an interesting interview between Sontag and Philip Johnson. They are touring the Seagram building in New York City. Philip Johnston helped to design this building. The Seagram building is a classic example of modern architecture. It was completed in 1958 and was one of the most expensive building projects of the time. The Seagram building is one of many buildings that featured modern architecture in New York City at this time. It is interesting to see Sontag interview Johnson because her work has become one of the greatest examples of postmodernism. Modern architecture stands in contrast to the camp styles of art that Sontag writes about. Modern architecture features a very minimalist uniform design, while camp art is often the exact opposite. Sontag states that “25. The hallmark of Camp is the Spirit of extravagance. Camp is a woman walking around in a dress made of three million feathers…Gaudi’s lurid and beautiful buildings in Barcelona are camp not only because of their style but because of what they reveal-most notably in the Cathedral of the Sagrada Familia- the ambition on the part of one man to do what it takes a generation, a whole culture to accomplish.”9 While the Seagram building contains extravagant materials in its interior, it does not possess any of the fun qualities of camp. The Cathedral of the Sagrada Familia however stands in stark contrast to the Seagram building. The Cathedral is one of the best examples of Camp architecture.

Your browser may not support display of this image.




This clip features an interview with Susan Sontag and Filmmaker Agnes Varda. This is a good example of a 1970’s era TV show. In this clip Sontag speaks about film and the reality of film. She argues that in film people are perceived the way the director wants them to be seen rather then they way they actually would act in society. This is an important idea for Sontag and it ties into her ideas about camp. For Sontag the realness of a character is important. This is an important idea in camp art. Camp art is traditionally very real. Also, camp art is imperfect by nature and focuses on they way everyone sees something, rather then just one persons idea of how something should be seen.

Susan Sontag became a major cultural icon during the 1960’s and remains an icon today. She was able to transform culture in a way that no other author did with her essay Notes on Camp. This essay proved to be one of the defining examples of her career. With this essay Sontag was able to unite high and low culture. It is clear from the essay that Sontag believes that a person can appreciate both high and low forms of art. This essay made it socially acceptable to enjoy camp works of art. With this essay Susan Sontag helped to bring about a new definition of art and helped to bring postmodern ideas to mainstream society.



Works Cited

Kennedy, Liam. Susan Sontag Mind As Passion. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1997.

McRobbie, Angela. Postmodernism and Popular Culture. New York: Routledge, 1994.

Rollyson, Carl E. Susan Sontag the making of an icon. New York: W.W. Norton, 2000.

Sontag, Susan. Against Interpretation And Other Essays. New York: Picador, 2001.

The Smithsonian: A Culture War Battleground


''Secure in tenure, they now serve up, in our museums and colleges, a constant diet of the same poison of anti-Americanisms on which they themselves were fed. Ultimate goal: Breed a generation of Americans who accept the Left's indictment of our country. For any nation to subsidize such assaults upon its history is to toy with suicide. But for Americans, whose history is so full of greatness and glory, it is criminal cowardice.”
-Pat Buchanan on the Enola Gay Exhibit

In the 1990s, the Culture Wars emerged on an unexpected stage: the Smithsonian Institute. In 1994, the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum designed an exhibit to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, refinishing the legendary Enola Gay B-52 bomber as the focal point of the exhibit. The ensuing debate over the contents and message of the exhibit aroused zealous and emotional responses from Right and Left-wing groups all of the United States. Whereas the museum historians wanted to discuss the various political motivations behind Truman’s decision, the physical destruction at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the ensuing nuclear arms race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, right-wing American’s screamed that the great American motivation “to save thousands of American lives” was completely ignored by “revisionist historians.” Here, Richard Kohn explores the dimensions of the Enola Gay controversy and describes how the political culture wars affected the debate over historical interpretation. Kohn warns that in the Culture Wars, not even museums, educators, or historians are allowed to deviate from the traditional American narrative.



DDT toxicity: the current science




If you're looking for the current consensus among biologists and health experts on the toxicity and carcinogenic potential of DDT, here is a good place to start. If you're looking for a spirited rebuttal to the ad hominem attacks on Carson's credibility as a scientist and conservationist, check here. And, finally, if you'd like to see review the recent discourse among environmentalists on the carefully targeted use of DDT to fight malaria, check here.

Reinhold Niebuhr and Religion in America

http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/multimedia/video/2008/wallace/niebuhr_reinhold.html

In this interview with Mike Wallace in 1958, Reinhold Niebuhr discusses religion in the pluralistic society of America. Wallace asks Niebuhr if a separation between Church and State is necessary if religion is good for society. Niebuhr responds that if religion is good, then the state should not intervene with it, but if religion is bad, meaning it gives ultimate sanctity to a particular cause, then it must not interfere with the state. Wallace then proceeds to ask Niebuhr if the Roman Catholic Church infringes upon civil liberties in America, since they are against birth control and divorce. Neibuhr answers that Roman Catholics have the right to enforce a standard within their own community, but that the Roman Catholic Church does not have the right to enforce its conception of divorce and birth control upon secular people. Not every standard of every church is a good standard for society in general, an issue that, as Niebuhr states, is a major issue in a democratic and pluralistic society that must be resolved by dealing with the policies and attitudes of all groups in a utilitarian matter.

"Culture Wars? How 2004."


E. J. Dionne addresses the issue of whether the emerging culture wars during the Bush election was a new discussion or one we are familiar with.  He goes as far back as 1928 during Prohibition.  The debates surrounded entirely on morals and what will come of the people elected.

He agrees entirely that during Bush's election, the issue surrounding moral values not only surfaced, but was the center of discussion. 

What's interesting about this particular article is that it claims we are now at the end of such an era.  That over-shadowing issues (like the Economic crisis in our time or the Great Depression in Hoover's) make our moral discussions "less pressing."  They can be set aside for later discussion after the issues at hand are solved.  It's as though when things need to be solved, we're able to focus on the larger picture.

His claim seems to make perfect sense but makes us question if it's valid. As hopeful as we are that when a crisis comes along similar to the one we're in we're able to set aside bickering, it seems as though 2009 is not a total departure from such issues.  But just as Dionne can look back on Prohibition and the Depression, we too will look back and see if we successfully navigated through our time.

The Harvardman's Canon (or lack thereof)

"Nick Carraway explains in The Great Gatsby—which I read because my high school and the writers of the Advanced Placement English Literature and Composition test luckily did believe in Great Books—that he is going to take up a heavy reading schedule so that he can become “that most limited of all specialists, the ‘well-rounded man.’ It is embarrassing that Harvard believes a medley of irrelevancies will prepare students for “life beyond college,” and even more embarrassing that the financial crisis is used as an excuse to stop investigating the serious idea that Great Books have a place in undergraduate education. "

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=527921


In an column in this week's Harvard Crimson, a Harvard student condemns Harvard lackluster attempt to modernize their general education, or core, classes. Calling it a game of semantics, Kiran R, Pendri, the columnist criticizes Harvard creating more politically correct course names without setting out guidelines for the type of classes should take. Like many who support a literary canon, Pendri says, "Deeply troubling and extremely questionable, this recent development suggests that the administration is not at all serious about rethinking what ought to constitute a liberal education" because it does not prepare students for a life in academia by teaching James, Mill, or Camus but instead Japanese Pop Culture. His solution: recognize that there is a canon that is worth knowing.

It seems that rejection of the canon has become less about including minority voices to create a more complete, worldly view through literary education and more about allowing students to persue their own interests. This is viable to a degree, but it puts a trust in the student that he/she wants to learn, not just get an easy A. Whether one agrees with the canon or not, it still exists and is still important to many people, and students are still expected to know the "greats" after college, even if they weren't required to learn them.

Just not in my Backyard

http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.bu.edu/pqdweb?index=2&did=1630386312&SrchMode=1&sid=3&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1241009213&clientId=3740

The article titled "W.H.O. Supports Wider Use of DDT to Combat Malaria" by Celia W. Dugger was published on September 16, 2006 by the New York Times. In the article, Dugger examines how the World Health Organization, at the persistence of its leader Dr. Arata Kochl, supports a policy of spraying small amounts of DDT inside African homes to combat malaria.

She notes that this was a controversial decision that led to internal conflict within the W.H.O but was supported by the Bush administration.

She also writes that the publication of Silent Spring created an environmental movement that caused DDT to become illegal in the United States. It's interesting to see how a pesticide that has been considered extremely dangerous in America (it kills animal and plant species and causes genetic defects in humans) can by sprayed inside of African homes.

Pat Buchanan Culture Wars Speech

I found this speech striking. Here in 1992 Pat Buchanan, a right-winged republican speaks of George Bush as a proper candidate for President (to serve a second term). He talks of the wide gap between the conservative right and liberal left. He speaks of freedom and refuses to allow for dissent from the liberal bias.

While this is all well and good (also proper because these ideals are protected by out Constitution) yet it opened my eyes. I have seen how far the Republican Party has come. In this speech, Buchanan openly bashes the gay community, liberals, and radical feminism. This might just be my opinion but now while the Republican Party still might house these ideals, they are less openly discussed and freely opposed.

Is this the changing of the Republican Party? Do the warring beliefs morph over time?

Another thing that is worth noting is that vocal performance by the audience. I have always assumed that vocalism was exhibited by the liberal left. However, this phenomena is found in all people, not just in the progressive left.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO5_1ps5CAc&feature=PlayList&p=B3AA9D15220FC23C&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=16

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pICypNXHKbg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lstA7j5fmio&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO2wzdOCqr8&feature=related

There are 4 parts.

The End of the Culture Wars...

... or at least the end of current battles. Fivethirtyeight.com is a website that analyzes opinion polling, and gained fame after being the most accurate predictor of the 2008 election. Click here and here.

These are aggregates of polls about marijuana use and support for gay marriage. The war on drugs and same-sex marriage are wedge issues in American politics and embody the current culture wars, but vehement opposition seems to be falling. Among younger people especially, socially liberal politics are mainstream and trending away from reactionaries in the conservative movement.

Good news for Democrats, as they are positioned philosophically for even greater party affiliation (over 10 percentage points already). It will be many years before Republicans drop abortion, homosexuals, religion, et al. from their agenda to reconnect with the majority of citizens.

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Allan Bloom and The Culture Wars

I found this interview with Allan Bloom, the author of The Closing of the American Mind to be very interesting. Bloom argues that modernism is not enough to make someone truly educated, and that universities should return to a focus on the classics. Even though Bloom's book was adopted by many conservatives of his time, Bloom claims that his book is not as politically divisive as many people make it out to be. I find it ironic that Bloom is very critical of the focus on the idea of values, as the word has been shaped by Nietzsche, as opposed to questions of good and evil. It seems like Bloom would disagree with many of the values focused
conservatives who supported him. 


The Future of Feminism

When we discussed feminism in class, the idea that there isn’t a clear future for the feminist movement came up. It was mentioned that perhaps the future of feminism will be more international as most causes for feminist activism in the United States either no longer exist or are not worth pursuing. This article addresses the question of how young women view feminism and its future. The general idea that many young women (and probably men) do not have strong feelings regarding feminism and perhaps do not completely understand the purpose of feminism is prevalent in the article and I think, seemed to be the general consensus in class. I think what is interesting about the feminist movement is that it was once such passionate cause and is now either mocked or regarded with apathy. While the intensity many social movements often dies down over time, most causes are still considered respectable in a way that feminism is not. I think this either calls for the abandonment of feminism or a complete transformation of the purpose of the feminist movement.



Gunnar Myrdal: An American Dilemma

Although Gunnar Myrdal is not an American he, like Tocqueville, offered much insight into American culture and society. Myrdal wrote about race relations in the United States. In his "An American Dilemma," Myrdal writes of the North's disillusionment with the South's treatment of African Americans.
Myrdal writes, "The Northerner does not have his social conscience and all his political thinking permeated with the Negro problem as the Southerner does. Rather, he succeeds in forgetting about it most of the time. The Northern newspapers help him by minimizing all Negro news, except crime news. The Northerners want to hear as little as possible...The result is an astonishing ignorance about the Negro on the part of the white public in the North." Myrdal argues that the North and the federal government were completely ignorant towards the racism and the Jim Crow aspect of the South.
It was Myrdal's writing on segregation and the potential causes and methods of a future civil rights movement that influenced many journalists, judges, and lawyers to pursue race equality. Myrdal's book helped the Supreme Court find factual information for their reason for overturning Plessy vs. Fergusion.
It was Myrdal's writing that influenced the Supreme Court to integrate, Civil Rights leaders to demonstrate, and journalists to report on more than just African American crime. Myrdal heavily influenced the Civil Rights Movement and was the foundation of many American intellectuals.

Here is a link to some passages from Myrdal's book, "An American Dilemma."

http://books.google.com/books?id=VH0SFTzWdokC&dq=Gunnar+Myrdal&printsec=frontcover&source=an&hl=en&ei=8sT3SdnyE8OLtgezovjBDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPP1,M1

Rachel Carson vs Dick Tavern

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/feb/18/highereducation.uk

Above is link to an article by Dick Tavern from 2005. In his article he tells the reader that Rachel Carson may have had good intentions when writing her book "Silent Spring", but that the outcome of her book was negative. In "Silent Spring" Carson writes that DDT caused cancer and liver damage, but Tavern claims that there is no evidence to support her claim. Tavern goes on to say that "DDT is the most effective agent ever invented for preventing insect-borne disease, which, according to the US National Academy of Sciences and the WHO, prevented over 50 million human deaths from malaria in about two decades." He is upset that Carson's influence and what he calls "careless science" has prevented DDT from helping stop disease for people that need it. 
I thought it was interesting to find an article that criticizes "Silent Spring", especially in 2005. Also, Tavern claims that Carson's claims lacked support. I wonder if Tavern was just attempting to hurt Carson's cause or is he correct. I attempted to find the truth and I found articles that supported both sides; however, I do find it hard to believe that Carson would have made claims that she had no support for.


Culture Wars in Urban Society

I thought the book Yo' mama's disfunktional!: Fighting the Culture Wars in Urban America by Robin D. G. Kelley was an interesting spin on the culture wars we had been discussing in class. In the fist chapter, he addresses the problem of minority literature in that people tend to generalize it and not analyze it's meaning properly.

"My purpose, then, is to offer some reflections on how the culture concept employed by social scientists has severely impoverished contemporary debates over the plight of urban African Americans and contributed to the construction of the ghetto as a resevoir of pathologies and bad cultural values. ... While some aspects of black expressive cultures certainly help inner city residents deal with and even resist ghetto conditions, most of the literature ignores what cultural forms mean for the practitioners. Few scholars acknowledge that what also might be at stake here are aesthetics, style, and pleasure."

Although I couldn't read all of it, I thought the urban point of view showed more than just culture wars in terms of the literary canon. The chapter I found most interesting was the fifth one, How the New Working Class Can Transform America, because it gives insight into culture wars beyond academia how the face of the working class is shifting.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=1gl4RP__PTEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA15&dq=culture+wars&ots=dAOhcdg31i&sig=qwV5w-862U3_yvsyIbpbLgGWJ0k#PPP1,M1


(P.S. I apologize for the profanity in Chapter 1, I couldn't get the site to load with the cover first...)

Sontag on dreams. Freud be damned.

Since we've discussed Susan Sontag and her stance on interpretation, I've been curious about how she felt about dreams. Dreams not only lend themselves to interpretation, they beg for it. Apparently, her first public work as an intellectual, the publication of her novel The Benefactor, takes on just that subject. Here is an excerpt:

"I devoted the entire morning to puzzling over the details of the dream, and urged myself to apply some ingenuity to their interpretation. But my mind refused to cavort about the dream. By mid afternoon, I suspected that the dream had, so to speak, interpreted itself...

I paused over the man in the bathing suit and his flute, and his antagonism to me. I savored my attraction to the woman in the white dress, and her refusal of me. 'I have had a sexual dream,' I said. And I could make little more of it than that, before the evening."

The dream she talks about is incredibly surreal and odd dialogue moving it forward. I have not read the book, merely a few pages, but based on my brief reading, and her quote, "I was not looking for dreams to interpret my life, but rather my life to interpret my dreams," I can assume that she stands firmly against interpretation of dreams, much as she does art.

Parts of her book can be found on GoogleBooks.

Bucky Fuller's Dome

http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.bu.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T6434767277&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T6434767282&cisb=22_T6434767281&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=138620&docNo=4



Throughout his life, Bucky Fuller was a strong advocate of environmentalism. It was during the 1950's that he came up with the term "spaceship earth" to show how Americans need to care for the Earth in the same way that they care for spaceships as the Space Races began to take off at this time. This article talks about another one of Fuller's environmental ideas: a dome that would cover all of Manhattan. Fuller had been interested in "the relationship between natural and artificial design" and had built domes for Ford and Walt Disney. With his environmental background, he felt that there was a need for a dome over Manhattan that would cover the entire city. Unfortunately, Fuller died in 1985 and his dream of a dome in Manhattan was never realized.

Steven Brockerman on Carson's Silent Spring

I found this article from August, 2002, by Steven Brockerman, in Capitalism Magazine: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1796

In the article, Brockerman attempts to explain why Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring caused a ban on DDT that, instead of protecting us, actually is causing us danger by allowing mosquitoes carrying malaria to go unharmed and spread the disease. Brockerman argues that Carson's claims about studies like DeWitt's on thinned eggs of birds were taken the wrong way; Carson claimed the study showed exposure to DDT resulted in thinned eggs, and Brockerman argues DeWitt's study showed birds which were fed DDT produced 50% more eggs. Brockerman makes the point (like many others) that Carson's proof in Silent Spring is not all accurate and can sometimes be disproved. He also goes on to talk about her assertion that if DDT continued to be used, humans would contract cancers at an increasing rate. Brockerman notes a study of DDT-fed mice which developed a higher incidence of leukemia and tumors, but says this is not relevant because studies of humans living in areas where DDT was known to be did not develop the same incidence. He also concludes by claiming "One would have to conclude, given the facts, that environmentalists are either insane or intent upon eradicating every human being from the face of the planet." Brockerman seems to have missed the point of the environmentalist movement that Carson was part of: that we must learn to respect and care about species in nature and the environment itself, not merely about what resources we can get from it.

Revisiting 'Silent Spring': Rachel Carson's Legacy


Rachel Carson's has been both celebrated and villianized for her early work for environmentalism the 1960's. She inspired may movement's since that time and
also caused a lot of controversy due to her work.

The most astonishing accomplishment that can be directly linked to her published
research in the banning of DDT (a pesticide).

However, she's also been deemed a trouble maker and backward for her thought.
Former biochemist and assistant director of the Agricultural Research Division
of American Cyanamid called Carson "a fanatic defender of the cult of balance of
nature," also claiming that if a "man were to follow the teachings of Miss
Carson, we would return to the Dark Ages, and insects and disease would once
again inherit the earth."

However, Carson's work can be attributed with a lot of positive change. She
inspired former US Vice President Al Gore and inspired much of today's research
on the effects on indiscriminate pesticide use.

Read more here.

Culture Wars

I found a blog post on a highly religious Christian website. It is called "How to Navigate Academic Culture Wars." The post references how grad students are often turned into pawns for the cultural wars. It tells students that they have both a defensive and offensive tool to combat this and make sure they do not get taken advantage of. The defense is to never say a negative comment about anyone, the offense is to use your academic prowess. This article is interesting because of the very religious blog and the ways they are trying to cope with the subject of the culture wars in academia.

http://www.urbana.org/blogs/blog.main.allthingsnew.cfm/2009/4/23/How-to-Navigate-Academic-Culture-Wars

Monday, April 27, 2009

John Dewey-Pragmatism-World War I

John Dewey's Pragmatism and World War I

John Dewey (front, center) with the editors of the Inlander at the University of Michigan (circa 1885). Dewey was also a member of the Metaphysical Club under C.S. Peirce and William James.

By Johanna Kaiser

Upon his death in 1952, John Dewey was recognized as “America’s philosopher” and there is not a more appropriate title. Most widely known for his educational reforms that are still seen in today’s classrooms, Dewey was applauded for his focus on practical application of education. Born in 1859 in Burlington, Vermont Dewey came of age during a period of great transformation in the country’s accepted schools of thought. Dewey was, as Menand calls him, “the last Vermont Transcendentalist” and his philosophy was greatly influenced and aligned with James Marsh’s belief that the dichotomy between philosophical and theological explanations of the world as a whole was false and Marsh’s disagreement with Lockean individualism. In Marsh’s view there is no distinction between the individual and the state; an individual is defined and shaped by their role in the state, or outside community.1 These views are especially relevant to Dewey’s support of the First World War as a tool for international democracy, and though his was a pragmatic view, as were most of his views, Pragmatism was not Dewey’s first answer to the world.

As one of the first philosophy students at Johns Hopkins University, Dewey was greatly influenced by George S. Morris who he studied under and later worked with at the University of Michigan as head of the Philosophy Department. From Morris he adopted an Hegelian idealist view of the world and did not give much attention to the experimental psychology and formal logic of the time.2 Though he is most recognized as a pragmatist (and his own vision of Instrumentalism), Dewey never sought the teachings of the original pragmatist, or as he would have preferred pragmaticist, C.S. Peirce. Peirce was a professor at Johns Hopkins but Dewey chose the tutelage of Morris and shied away from Peirce’s logistical classes, a subject in which Dewey felt inept. Dewey’s lack of Pragmatic education allowed him to create his own use of the philosophy and Peirce often criticized him and William James for their misuse of the term and for diverting away from its original meaning.

It was not until 1904 that Dewey embraced Pragmatism as a valid philosophy. In his Logic: The Theory of Inquiry published that year, Dewey acknowledged that logic is a vital instrument for arriving at valid claims and this belief was fundamental to his later views of Pragmatism and development of Instrumentalism. As White says in his study of Dewey’s intellectual influences and evolution, “The organic unity of idea and fact gave way to the unity of theory and practice...the Absolute Reason fell before inquiry.”3

For Dewey, and for all Pragmatists, ideas were tools to reach a truth that explained some aspect of the world. But for Dewey he saw the connection between thought and action critical and felt that all philosophy should have consequences as to how we lead our lives and our culture He saw this especially useful in terms of social change, which he believed possible through inquiry and action. Philosophy that did not bring about change was useless in Dewey’s eyes. “Changes which are effected by embodying scientific discoveries in mechanical inventions and appliances endure while matters which absorbed in their day much more of conscious attention and mad much more of a stir in the realm of thought, have sunk beneath waves of oblivion.”4 This is not to say that Dewey did not value intellectual debate. Rather he took intellectual theorizing to a more practical approach and concluded that intelligence is another tool that can be used to affect society and bring about change.

Dewey’s view that social progress was the goal of intellectual thought and action led him to support America’s entrance into World War I in 1917. Debate raged among intellectuals and citizens regarding what role America should play in European affairs, but with the sinking of the Lusitania it was clear that some action would be taken by the States. President Wilson declared America would enter the war to make the world safe for democracy and in this phrase we have Dewey’s basis for supporting the war. Like many progressive liberals of the day, Dewey supported President Wilson’s decision and believed that once America won the war, as it surely would, the country would be able to shape global policy. Dewey’s Pragmatism did not allow him to consider whether the war was necessary or not but made him view it as an opportunity to expands America’s experiment of democracy that could teach the world, not through books, but through direct action and example a model for the future.5 Overall, Dewey saw the war as a tool to bring about change. He believed the social and economic changes that could be brought about by the war were of greater consequence than the original purpose of the war. “Autocracy,” he said, “strains human nature to the breaking point; [democracy] releases and relieves it--such, I take it, is the ultimate sanction of democracy, for which we are fighting.”6 This again is Dewey as a Pragmatist not judging the war based on its direct actions, but its ability to stimulate change in thought and in action.

Bodies of German soldiers in a trench. Just one of the many
examples of the unexpected brutalities of the war. It's original
caption read
"And the Trench was a Reeking Shambles."

Dewey was not a war monger by any means, but knowing that he could not stop a conflict like World War I, he attempted to make the best of a bad situation. He could not justify such a war on the arguments of European imperialists, but through his Instrumentalism Dewey used the war as a lesson to improve society and prevent the necessity of future such atrocities. The education Dewey hoped the war would provide was social: “It is proved now that it is possible for human beings to take hold of human affairs and manage them, to see an end which has to be gained, a purpose which must be fulfilled, and deliberately and intelligently to to work to organize the means, the resources and the methods of accomplishing those results.”7 The war taught people that they were responsible for their lives and could therefore make attempts to change those lives. By showing individuals that they could be mobilized to run factories and boost morale they never before thought possible, the war, in Dewey’s opinion, acted as a catalyst of continued action. If people could maintain their vigor and work ethic of war, then they could apply these new found skills in peacetime to create a better society. This experience would give citizens the tools to actively participate in what James called “the moral equivalent of war.”

This new industriousness of the American people (as seen below, depicted in the propaganda poster of the time) would ideally not be for private, financial gain. As a progressive, Dewey saw the best outcome of the war as one that encouraged social change: “It would be, it seems to me, hardly short of a crime if we permit this newly stirred idealism of our youth to dissipate itself, after the war, in colleges and beaten channels.”8 Again, it is apparent that Dewey values the actions of intelligence and inquiry as tools to create a more democratic society. Dewey reiterates the importance of social responsibilities in many other essays, revealing his early belief that the individual cannot exist apart from a social community. Considering this, Dewey probably did not concern himself with the atrocities of war because the individual experiences were just tools in the education and development of society. The war was a necessary evil to cure what Dewey saw as the greater domestic evils of poverty, unemployment, and lack of education. The opportunities created by the war would be especially important for Dewey who saw charity as demoralizing.9 This ideal was most likely fostered by Dewey’s intellectual relationship and personal friendship with Jane Addams, founder of Chicago’s Hull House. Addams, however, was a pacifist during the war and in all events and disapproved of Dewey’s endorsement of America’s role.10 Though Dewey eventually saw eye-to-eye with Addams the conflict of the war was a great tool to educate the public on social issues. Like his policy in the classroom, Dewey wanted experiences to show people how to think; not what to think.


View of Jane Addam's Hull House where Dewey lectured.


Despite his interest in education, Dewey was not willing to sacrifice personal freedom for a better educated society. In Education and Social Direction he criticizes those who admire Germany’s authoritarian education that produced endurance and obedience in our adversaries during the war and those who suggest America adopt a similar policy. “Since they do not perceive the interdependence of ends and means, or of purposes and methods, their error is intellectual rather than perversely immoral. They are stupid rather than deliberately disloyal.”11 To create such a educational system, says Dewey, sacrifices the individual and democratic ideals for efficiency and a subservient populace. Though Dewey supports a socially minded and applicable education, in this case, the ends to not justify the ends for him. “We want that type of education which will discover and form the kind of individual who is the intelligent carrier of a social democracy--social indeed, but still a democracy,”12 writes Dewey. Education was a pragmatic tool for Dewey, but the tool itself was as important as the truth it sought. It is in belief that World War I provides a problem for Dewey’s philosophy.

Dewey viewed ends and their means on a continuum where ends could not be separated from the context of the actions that caused or led up to them. He also considered means an end themselves because though they are done to reach a future goal, they can still provide experience and progress if taken seriously.13 Considering this, it is not clear how Dewey could support a war that caused massive amounts of death and destruction. That is unless he viewed the the spread of democracy and social harmony as a worthy enough end to justify almost any means, which is what many of his writing suggest. A younger Dewey may have condemned the use of war, for he wrote in 1908, “Can there be found ends of action, desirable in themselves, which reenforce and expand not only the motives from which they directly spring, but also other tendencies and attitudes which are sources of happiness?”14 Despite his antagonism towards dualism, Dewey takes a very narrow Instrumentalist view of the war. He does not consider why America is involving itself with this war nor does he consider the negative outcomes that could arise; he focuses instead on the opportunity the war provides in creating a particular end. For this, he was often and greatly criticized.

One of the most vocal critics of the war was Randolph Bourne, a student and close friend of Dewey’s. Bourne criticized the war movement as a whole, and paid special attention in his criticisms to the progressive idea that war would allow for the spread of democracy and freedom throughout the world that Dewey and Wilson prescribed to. Bourne famously asked, “If the war is too strong for you to prevent, how is it going to be weak enough for you to control and mold to your liberal purposes?”15 Bourne paid special attention his former teacher and named an article in which he attacked Dewey’s Instrumentalism “Twilight of Idols”--a poetic and damning title. According to Bourne, Dewey’s Instrumentalism applied in war would be disastrous because Pragmatic ideas become too focused on the techniques of winning instead of on the vision for which we are fighting. This, says Bourne, is due to the fact that intellectuals like Dewey are not fighting the war and they therefore make the false assumption “that the war-technique can be used without trailing along with it the mob-fanaticism, the injustices and hatreds, that are organically bound up with it.”16 Instrumentalism may have been a too narrow interpretation of the war and Dewey was soon very aware of that as the war came to a close.

As history tells us, the progressive utopia envisioned by many Americans was not achieved by the First World War. This failure was most apparent in Wilson’s inability to pass his “14 Points” or League of Nations, acts that would promise a peace without victory. “In 1917 Dewey signed up for the war to end all wars and the war to make the world safe for democracy. Four years later he believed that he had been taken for a ride and that gullible Americans had been duped by the imperialist ruling classes of Britain and France,” asserts Ryan.17 Though he may have felt betrayed by Allies who sought land, power, and revenge after the war, Dewey was not shocked by this behavior. As the war ended, Dewey warned of the “cult of irrationality” that develops after a war in which “the leaders of the cult of irrational then strive to alter the emotions into those of fear, suspicion and hatred, knowing well--even if they have never thought of it--that when these feelings are excited they will attach themselves to lower ends, ends which better serve the purposes of those who instigate the cult.”18 This is targeted at the statesmen of Britain, France, and America who used people’s natural tendency to seek, in the absence of drastic societal duty, immediate and private pleasure and security in post-war society to fulfill their own nationalistic and political goals. Dewey predicts this will cause some impediments in developing a League of Nations and though he can see past his pure Pragmatism here, he still relies on it when supporting the post-war agency.

President Wilson promoted his "14 Points" across America and Europe to ensure a long lasting world peace. His proposal was rejected by the Senate in 1918 . This failure haunted Wilson until he died on February 3, 1924, by many accounts, a broken man.


http://www.box.net/shared/32ayqm03xv


Above is audio of a speech given by Republican Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts opposing the League of Nations. Lodge headed the opposition of the League in the Senate.


Dewey was a strong supporter of the League of Nations, and had a specific vision of how it would succeed. “The past system is not supported by any rational appeal to usefulness; its upholders always decry such an appeal as contrary to its proper elevated and noble nature...so a new type of international diplomacy would stimulated the tendency to use the intellectual power generated in modern industry and commerce for something besides personal advantage.” 19 In an ever more pragmatic world, the League had to be run Pragmatically. In Dewey’s opinion, a League of Nations should not be slow moving nor enact cumbersome laws, but should act as a hands-on guide and an aide to nations’ economic and social problems. Had the League of Nations been adopted Dewey’s suggestion would have been vital to its success.

Dewey's contribution to society was commemorated
when he was featured on a postage stamp by the U.S.
Post Office in 1968
Dewey was not the only intellectual disappointed by the results of World War I. He, like many Americans, believed American self-reliance and democracy could save the ravenous European nations from themselves. The unexpected brutality of the war and the inability to reach a satisfying peace presumably left many questions for Dewey. He relied on his idea of Pragmatism, that the war was a tool to achieve a better social good, to justify the battle and when his expected ends were not met, he was brutally disappointed. The educational experience Dewey hoped the war would give citizens was not lost; when America entered World War II in 1942, the people were ready for sacrifice and again determined to improve global society. Dewey’s theory of the war was not incorrect, but perhaps too narrow in its considerations of human emotion. Though this Instrumental approach was not suited for war, Dewey’s lasting contribution to education has suited America and helped students succeed as citizens for the last 70 years.

A video from the 1940's presents a positive view of the progressive education established by John Dewey.




Works Cited

1 Menand, Louis. The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. New York. 2001. 238, 245.

2 White, Morton G. “Conclusion.” The Origins of Dewey’s Instrumentalism. Octagon Books Inc. New York. 1964. 9-11.

3 Ibid. 152.

4 Dewey, John. “What Are We Fighting For?” John Dewey: The Middle Works, 1899-1924. Vol. 11:1918-1919. ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Southern Illinois University Press. 1982. 99.

5 Dewey, John. “America in the World” John Dewey: The Middle Works, 1899-1924. Vol. 11:1918-1919. ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Southern Illinois University Press. 1982. 72.

6 Dewey, John. “What Are We Fighting For?” John Dewey: The Middle Works, 1899-1924. Vol. 11:1918-1919. ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Southern Illinois University Press. 1982. 106.

7 Dewey, John. “Internal Social Reorganization after the War.” John Dewey: The Middle Works, 1899-1924. Vol. 11:1918-1919. ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Southern Illinois University Press. 1982. 82.

8 Dewey, John. “Vocational Education in the Light of the World War” John Dewey: The Middle Works, 1899-1924. Vol. 11:1918-1919. ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Southern Illinois University Press. 1982. 67.

9 Ibid. 75-76.

10 Menand, Louis. The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. New York. 2001. 313.

11 Dewey, John. “Education and Social Direction.” John Dewey: the Middle Works, 1899-1924. Vol. 11:1918-1919. ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Southern Illinois University Press. 1982. 54.

12 Ibid. 57.

13 Richardson, Henry S. “Truth and Ends in Dewey’s Pragmatism.” Pragmatism. ed. Cheryl Misak. University of Calgary Press. Alberta. 1999. 111-113.

14 Dewey, John. “Ethics” John Dewey: The Middle Works, 1899-1924. Vol. 5:1908. ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Southern Illinois University Press. 1982.

15 Bourne, Randolph. “Twilight of Idols.” The American Intellectual Tradition Vol. II 1865 to the Present. eds. Hollinger, David A. and Charles Capper. Oxford University Press. New York. 2006. 183.

16 Ibid. 181.

17 Ryan, Alan. “Pragmatism at War.” John Dewey and the High Tide of American Liberalism. W.W. Norton & Company. New York. 1995. 159.

18 Dewey, John. “The Cult of Irrationality.” John Dewey: the Middle Works, 1899-1924. Vol. 11:1918-1919. ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Southern Illinois University Press. 1982. 109.

19 Dewey, John. “The League of Nations and the New Diplomacy.” John Dewey: the Middle Works, 1899-1924. Vol. 11:1918-1919. ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Southern Illinois University Press. 1982. 132, 134.

Media Sources

Photograph of Dewey at University of Michigan courtesy of The Center for Dewey Studies, with the support of Special Collections, Morris Library at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. Photographs are free to the public use.

Image of WWI stereocard is in the public domain and was found here.

Image of Propaganda Poster was found here.

Photograph of Hull House is a copyrighted to the city of Chicago. It was found here.

Photograph of Woodrow Wilson is in the public domain as its copyright has expired. It was found here.

Audio of Henry Cabot Lodge is in the public domain. This clip was found here.

Dewey on Stamp is in the public domain as a work of the United States Federal Government. It was found here.

Sunday, April 26, 2009

Reinhold Niebuhr: The Cold War and Religion

Reinhold Niebuhr: The Cold War and Religion

 

                                                                    

                                       Reinhold Niebuhr: The Cold War and Religion

            On June 21, 1892 Karl Paul Reinhold Niebuhr was born in Wright City, Missouri. He was the son of Gustav and Lydia Niebuhr, both of which had emigrated from Germany. Gustav was a minister and at an early age Niebhur decided that he would follow in his father’s footsteps. However, Niebuhr’s ideas on religion eventually took him out of the realm of the church. By the end of his career he had implemented religion into both cultural and political spheres. After his death in 1971, the journalChristianity and Crisis published an article on Niebuhr’s career writing, “He put theology in the middle of the cultural and political world as it had not been for generations.”[1]

One of his first ventures into politics was after World War I. Before the war he had been a pacifist, like many other Christians, but in the 1930’s he left the Socialist Party because of its pacifist or noninterventionist attitude in foreign policy. By the 1940’s he had become a staunch left wing, anti-Communist Democrat. In 1947 we founded the Americans for Democratic Action, a political organization that was liberal on national affairs, internationalists in world outlook and anti-communist in conviction. He urged Christians who believed in pacifism alter their ideology and support the efforts being made in World War II.[2]

Niebuhr’s political efforts did not end with World War II. During the postwar period, from 1945 to 1952, Niebuhr helped promote European recovery and engaged in issues of the developing Cold War between Russia and the West. After Hitler surrendered, Niebuhr took great interest in the problems of war-torn Europe. He believed that the United States needed to be patient but firm when dealing with Stalinist Russia. In the summer of 1945 he noted that America’s relationship with Russia was being made difficult by Stalin’s refusal to abide by the Yalta agreement in constituting the Polish government. Niebuhr knew that America would have to be prepared for the action Russia might take in Eastern Europe and within six months Russia began to support Communists regimes that were taking over Poland, Romania, and Yugoslavia.

Niebuhr wrote, “Sin is always trying to be strong at the expense of something else. The Russians want to make themselves strong by dominating Eastern Europe, and as much more beside as they can. They would probably swallow both Turkey and Iran if they thought they could get away with it.”[3]

As the Cold War developed, Niebuhr continually affirmed the justice of the Western cause. Niebuhr believed that Americans had been living in “…a culture which drew the meaning of their [our] moral responsibilities from the hope of their actual fulfillment in history,”[4] and as a result Americans were poorly prepared for what was to lie ahead. In his book “Moral Man and Immoral Society”, Niebuhr explains that relations between human collectives are determined as much by power as by ethical or rational considerations. This requires the countering of power by power for the sake of justice. He believed that those who thought “the egoism of an individuals is being progressively checked by the development of rationality or the growth of a religious inspired goodwill” were foolish to think “nothing but the continuation of this process is necessary to establish social harmony between societies and collectives.”[5] Niebuhr wanted Christians, as well as all Americans, to realize that in order for there to be social justice and peace, they cannot remain passive and that actions needed to be taken for social changes to be made. In a 1954 sermon, Niebuhr discusses the United State’s role in international affairs. His sermon is featured on the “Speaking of Faith” website.

 http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/niebuhr/sermons.shtml       

           

In the summer of 1946 Niebuhr traveled to the American zone in Germany with a State Department educational mission. He witnessed first hand  “decent Germans” who did not follow Nazism and who were cut off from the outside world and were eager to be reconnected. While traveling, Niebuhr heard Secretary of State James Byrnes deliver a speech in which he assured the Germans that America’s presence would remain as long as necessary. Henry Wallace, a member of President Truman’s cabinet, openly criticized Byrnes for his comments and in a speech at Madison Square Garden he minimized the threat of the Soviet. His comments lost him his job.

 

 

Niebuhr quickly reacted to the controversy in his article “The Fight got Germany” in Life magazine.

“ I should like to challenge Wallace’s foreign politics, as expressed in his recent attack of Secretary Byrnes’s policy…I had the advantage of recognizing its errors with particular vividness because I was in Berlin when it was made. I saw the uses, which Soviet propaganda made of it and the disappointment and dismay it spread among democratic forces in Europe and Germany. They had just been tremendously heartened by Secretary Byrnes’s address in Stuttgart, which I had the pleasure of hearing.”[6]

 

Niebuhr believed the Cold War required the United States to sustain a middle ground. He thought the situation “…would be improved if the fear of Communism did not drive some people into the arms of reaction, and the fear of reaction did not drive others into the arms of Communism. Both fears must be overcome by the development of a healthy democratic program, embracing both foreign and domestic policy and both economic and political problems.”[7]

From August 22 to September 4, 1948 Niebuhr attended the founding assembly of the World Council of Churches in Amsterdam. Several hundred delegates and visitors from 147 denominations gathered. Karl Barth gave the first address. He stated that, “We ought to give up,… every thought that the care of the church, the care of the world is our care.”[8] Barth believed it was not the churches role to take on every issue of the time, especially the Cold War. While many delegates followed Barth’s ideology, Niebuhr did not. As he spoke to the audience he told them that it was “…the church’s task to mediate divine judgment and grace to nations, classes and cultures as well as to individuals. It was wrong to preach the gospel sub specie aeternitatis, as if there were no history with its time and season,”[9] He went on to explain that the final victory over man is God, but that man still has the responsibility for proximate victories. “Christian life without a high sense of responsibility for the health of our communities, our nations, and our cultures degenerates into an intolerable other worldliness. We can neither resource this earthly home of ours nor yet claim that its victories and defeats give the final meaning to our existence.”[10] While Niebuhr believed that God did have ultimate power, he also believed that people had the ability to have an affect on the outcome.  He believed Christians should not just accept the idea that what ever will happen, will happen because of God; instead, they should take responsibility and try to make a change. Audio of Niebuhr’s World Council Address can be found at “Speaking of Faith.”http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/niebuhr/sermons.shtml

Niebuhr used biblical references to back his ideas. “My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord.”[11]Niebuhr saw the church as a community of believers persuaded to believe “the whole of life and all historical vicissitudes stand under the sovereignty of a holy, yet merciful God.”[12] Niebuhr wanted people to recognize that they had the ability to think and that it was their responsibility to use their minds to bring social justice. The Christian faith provides the ultimate security, but Niebuhr encouraged Christians to “…be involved constantly in the world of culture, practically and theoretically,” and  “…finally, of course, understand how inadequate the wisdom of the world is from the standpoint of the foolishness of the Gospel,”[13] Using the ideas of St. Augustine, Niebuhr expanded his ideas of self in his lecture “Augustine’s Conception of Selfhood.” Augustine, like Niebuhr, understood that Christianity and the Bible were unique. Augustine knew that the individual was capable of controlling his or her own mind, memory and will.

On April 17, 1958, Niebuhr was interviewed by Mile Wallace on “The Mike Wallace Interview”. In this interview Niebuhr spoke about communism and nuclear war and addresses the idea that because America is a Christian country it will undoubtedly defeat atheist, communist countries. Once again Niebuhr informs the American people that their religion alone will not lead to justice. This video is featured on The University of Texas at Austin Harry Ransom Center’s website.

http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/multimedia/video/2008/wallace/niebuhr_reinhold.html

In January of 1961, President Kennedy, who Niebuhr supported, took office after narrowly winning the election against Richard Nixon. At the time Khrushchev still remained in power and Latin America was beginning to feel the pressures of Communism. Under Castro, Cuba submitted to Communism and Communism threatened to spread wherever poverty bred discontent. Kennedy started such initiatives as the Peace Corps, which sent American volunteers to help in Third World countries and the Alliance for Progress, which offered funds for economic development and social reform in Latin America to try to combat the spread of Communism. Niebuhr supported the Kennedy administration’s new programs writing that the “ ‘Alliance for Progress’ program was the first genuine effort to use our nations economic power to help our hemispheric neighbors to change their social patterns.”[14]

It seemed like things were heading in a positive direction that is until April of 1961, when a planned invasion of Cuba known as the Bay of Pigs was unsuccessful. Furthering the problem in Cuba was the installation of Russian nuclear missile-launching sites in October of 1962. President Kennedy rejected the option of bombing the sites and invading Cuba because that could have easily led to World War III. Instead he announced a blockade of further Soviet shipments, the dismantling of the sites and warned that the United States would respond to any missile attack from Cuba by attacking the Soviet Union. Khrushchev eventually agreed as long as Cuba would not be invaded by the U.S. Niebuhr supported Kennedy’s decision. He believed the outcome was the beginning of a bridge that was supported by common sense. Although Kennedy threatened the Soviet with violence, it was necessary to keep the peace. Niebuhr agreed with Kennedy’s plan because he understood that at times it is mandatory to meet power with power.

Although crisis was averted for the time being, there was still great concern throughout America about the Cold War, which by now was spreading all over the world. By 1965 the situation in Vietnam had escalated and President Johnson had transformed the U.S. role, which was once limited, into an open-ended military commitment. At first much of America supported the war efforts and wanted nothing more than to put to a stop to communism. However, by the late 1960’s Americans witnessed the horrors of war through their televisions and came to understand the reality of the situation, rather than what their government had been telling them. Niebuhr, who didn’t support the war from the beginning, believed “One of the standards of a just war is that is must have a good prospect of success.” and the Vietnam War did not. Also a just war “ must be proportionate to the ends” and “the means were not proportionate to the ends, wither in blood or in money.”[15] In 1966 Vice President, Hubert Humphrey sent Niebuhr a letter thanking him for inviting him to speak at the 25th anniversary banquet of the journal “Christianity and Crisis.” In his speech he described the reason for the U.S.’s current policy regarding Southeast Asia.

                                        d73.jpg

                                                

This image was provided by "Speaking of Faith" website. speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/.../ d73.jpg

Niebuhr died on June 1, 1971, four years before the war in Vietnam ended. Although he was not there to witness the war in its entirety, Niebuhr would not have been surprised by Americans role and the outcome of the conflict. When Niebuhr became a left-wing Democrat for social action he encouraged other pacifists to do the same. He encouraged not just Christians, but all Americans to not stand ideally by and hope that those who believe in God would come out victorious. He urged Americans to take a stand and push for social change and justice, even if that meant going to war. Yet, Niebuhr also knew that there was such a thing as a just war and that the Vietnam War was not one of them. Niebuhr did not live till the end of the war, but those who continued to oppose the war carried on his ideas. Niebuhr’s ideas are still felt in the political and social spheres in American today and even here on the Boston University campus. In 2007 the Boston University professor, Andrew J. Bacevich, delivered the University Lecture, “Illusions of Managing History: The Enduring Relevance of Reinhold Niebuhr, in which he speaks about Niebuhr’s theories and their relevance in today’s world.

http://www.bu.edu/phpbin/buniverse/videos/view/?id=127


[1] “The Greatness of Reinhold Niebuhr.” Union Seminary Quarterly Review (1968) 3-8.

[2] "Reinhold Niebuhr." Encyclopedia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 20 Apr. 2009 <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/414557/Reinhold-Niebuhr>.

[3] Reinhold Niebuhr. Love and Justice: selections from the shorter writings of Reinhold Niebuhr(Westminster: 1992) 192.

[4] Reinhold Niebuhr, Moral man and Immoral Society (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1932).

[5]Ibid.

[6] Reinhold Niebuhr, Life , “The Fight for Germany” (1946).

[7] Charles Brown,  Niebuhr and his Age (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992) 128.

[8] Ibid, 143.

[9][9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid. 144.

[11] Bible, Isaiah, 55:8

[12] Ibid, 155.

[13] Ibid, 158.

[14] Reinhold Niebuhr, , “President Kennedy’s Cuban Venture,” Christianity and Crisis, 21 (May 15, 1961) 69-70.

[15] Ronald Stone, “An Interview with Reinhold Niebuhr”, Christianity and Crisis. 29, (March 19, 1969) 50.