Friday, June 12, 2009

Is There an American Mind?

By Allen C. Guelzo

[And has it changed? In his waning days, Thomas Jefferson said the Declaration of Independence "was intended to be an expression of the American mind." Mr. Guelzo gives a brief but very important history of "the American mind," excerpted here. The full essay can and should be read in its entirety, natch.---TVD]

Do Americans have minds?

Of course not. “The greater part of the public, and a greater part even of the intelligent and alert public, is simply non-intellectual,” declared Richard Hofstadter in his bluntly titled Anti-intellectualism in American Life in 1963. Of course not, agreed Daniel Boorstin, Hofstadter’s contemporary and (in many ways) nemesis. “When,” Boorstin asked, “has a culture owed so little to its few ‘great’ minds or its few hereditarily fortunate men and women?” Of course not, chortled Henry Louis Mencken, the king of the debunkers, in the 1920s. Precisely because America was the great engine of democracy, it was also the ruthless engine of populism, the land of what Mencken snarlingly called “the booboisie,” “boobus Americanus,” or the “boobocracy.”

We could, in fact, create quite a long list of testimonies about American mindlessness, and it would include Ralph Waldo Emerson, Frederick Jackson Turner, James Fenimore Cooper, and Alexis de Tocqueville (who was dismayed to find that “there is no country in the civilized world” with “fewer great artists, illustrious poets, and celebrated writers”).

“When foreigners accuse us of extraordinary love for gain, and of practical materialism, they fail to see how largely we are a nation of idealists,” complained the Harvard philosopher Josiah Royce in 1897. We wouldn’t know this, however, if we judged by the way the history of American ideas is usually taught. Take, as a recent instance, William Goetzmann’s new Beyond the Revolution: A History of American Thought from Paine to Pragmatism (Basic, 480 pp., $35).

The America of Tom Paine “was a country of diversity and vastness,” but also of “vagueness.” This “vagueness” Goetzmann assumes to be a virtue in its own right, since it permitted Americans “to constantly redefine themselves” for a century after Paine “in search of an ideal — freedom.” At last, in the 1890s, Americans invented Pragmatism, which turned this incessant reinvention into a philosophy of its own, whose chief accomplishment was to abolish any “moral guides” on reinvention. The chief accomplishment of American thought is thus to free itself — from thought.

This is not entirely Goetzmann’s fault, since Goetzmann is only following what I’ll call, for simplicity’s sake, the “Harvard Narrative” of American intellectual history, a pattern laid down since the 1920s...The Harvard Narrative proceeds like this: Begin with the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay in the 1630s. Touch, if you like, on the fact that these Puritans possessed a university-trained leadership and organized themselves around a university-trained clergy, sunk deeply in theology and medieval scholasticism. But be sure to dismiss this as little more than some very dense holy-rolling, and simply note in passing that the Puritans founded Harvard College only six years after settling Boston.

Move as quickly as decency permits to Jonathan Edwards. Not that Edwards is all that interesting as a thinker, but treat him as undoubtedly the last example of whatever thinking the Puritans did. Dwell at length on his role as a hell-fire preacher during the Great Awakening of the 1740s. But dwell even more on the fact that the Awakening died out by 1742, and that Edwards was fired from his job as pastor of his church in 1750 and died just as he was assuming the presidency of Princeton in 1758. Let him stand as a sign of how badly America treats its thinkers, but somehow simultaneously make him out to be not much of a thinker at all.

This is the last time you will actually need to worry about ideas in this history of American ideas, because you are now ready for an introduction to Benjamin Franklin, the model American and proto-Pragmatist — practical, commonsensical, businesslike, and born with an eye to the main chance. There is room, within the Harvard Narrative, to talk a little bit about the ideology of the American Revolutionaries —--but let Franklin stay at front stage. Jump from there to Ralph Waldo Emerson and the Transcendentalists, a few New England Renaissance novelists (Melville, Hawthorne), and then you’re prepared to herald the arrival of William James and John Dewey, and the triumph of Pragmatism as the first, true, and only American philosophy — precisely because it is a philosophy that sees no intrinsic use for ideas, and uses them only as instruments for obtaining results.

Goetzmann’s Beyond the Revolution is actually content to end with Pragmatism, as though Game Over had popped up on the screen sometime in the mid-1890s. The rest, we can assume, is just details. Within this narrative, there are really only two messages: how we escaped the influence of religion, and why all American intellectual roads lead to Pragmatism.

There is, however, a difficulty with the Harvard Narrative...the more you look at it, the more apples and oranges get packed into the same crate. Notice that these writers represent different and largely incompatible genres. Edwards’s collected writings, in the modern Yale edition, run to 26 volumes, and span everything from parish sermons to full-fledged treatises on ethics. Franklin’s only philosophical work was a youthful essay on free will; it was his Experiments and Observations on Electricity in 1751 that made him world-famous. Emerson never wrote a book longer than 45 pages...and earned most of his celebrity as a popular lecturer.


[The Harvard Narrative] must not know, or seem to know, that between the day the Puritans founded Harvard and the day Edwards began preaching stretches an entire century in which New Englanders wrestled mightily with the impact on the intellectual world of Cartesian epistemology and Newtonian science; that Edwards shaped the creation of two generations of independent preachers and theological thinkers who applied his creative adaptations of Descartes and Newton to questions of personal identity, knowledge, and religion; that Franklin’s adopted home of Philadelphia belonged — at least intellectually — not to Franklin but to the Enlightenment; and that this latter movement, instead of standing aloof from the religious concerns of evangelical Awakeners like Edwards, actually incorporated them, and produced a generous flowering of writing on what 18th-century philosophes called “moral philosophy,” with its roots in the Scottish Enlightenment and its headquarters in Philadelphia.

The moral-philosophy tradition was a speculative mix of natural-law ethics with overtones of Christian orthodoxy minimal enough to prevent any Jeffersonian vigilantes from decrying it as a stalking horse for public religion. And it produced a counterpart in political theory in the ideology of the American Whig party, represented by Henry Carey, Francis Wayland, and Abraham Lincoln. Wayland’s Elements of Moral Science (1835) sold 40,000 copies in its first 15 years and 100,000 during its life in print. By contrast with Wayland, Emerson and the Transcendentalists were Romantic lightweights.

I mean “Romantic” in a very specific sense, too. Puritanism, and its renewal by Edwards in the 1740s, opposed much of what the Enlightenment stood for. Puritans and Edwardseans were people of religious faith, and accepted certain truths about God and the world as they were described in the Bible; and many of those truths were sorted out and shaped by the theology of John Calvin, and by the experience of religious individualism and moral rigor laid down by the first Puritan generation. But Puritanism had more flex in it than we often think, and even Edwards’s fiery evangelicalism had an overlap with the Enlightenment in its respect for reason and universal moral principles. Puritanism and the Enlightenment represent the “two souls” of American intellectual history, but they were souls that could inhabit the same body without always inducing schizophrenia.

The Enlightenment believed that all real questions had real answers, and that these answers were knowable and universally compatible with one another. The Romantics disagreed: Reason was a limited and broken tool and did not reveal half of what it claimed to reveal about the world; people wanted to be guided by passion rather than reason; and what appeared true to some people was not necessarily true for others or other cultures. Consequently, Emerson is really linked not to Franklin or to Pragmatism, but to the European Romantics — to the later Kant, to Hegel and Chateaubriand.

However, the Harvard Narrative is right on at least one point, and that is the revolutionary upthrust of Pragmatism at Harvard after the Civil War. Nothing could represent a more dramatic intellectual break with the moral philosophers’ pursuit of truth, hard-wired into the natural order of things, than Pragmatism. The architects of Pragmatism — Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and (to a lesser degree) Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. — shrank in horror from the carnage of the Civil War, convinced that the pursuit of truth was what turned men into absolutists and sent them into battle with each other.

Peirce and James rejected the idea that truth was a set of beliefs or propositions that corresponded to an eternal natural order of right and wrong. Truth, by their reckoning, was what gave people satisfaction, irrespective of what form it took. Truth was, to borrow a term from Kant, pragmatic. And nothing was worth calling truth, James announced, unless it offered “a doctrine of relief.”

It was John Dewey, however, who transformed Pragmatism from a sort of philosophical therapy into a grand scheme of educational and social reconstruction. Dewey’s demand for “Reconstruction in Society” had no use for religion or any other form of absolute truth. What mattered was the creation of a pragmatic society in which everyone enjoyed fairness, worried only about solving immediate problems by generally agreed means, and got along happily — like a gigantic but carefully managed school recess.

Not intellectual questions, but social solutions, were of genuine interest to Pragmatism. Dewey’s social Pragmatism, in turn, appealed deeply to a new industrial class of white-collar managers and bureaucrats, from Woodrow Wilson to Frederick Winslow Taylor (the first industrial “efficiency expert”). These were the unsmiling, untheoretical problem-solvers who formed the backbone of turn-of-the-century Progressive politics, and they became the grandfathers of the New Deal and the Great Society.

Grant the fundamental premises of Pragmatism — that no truth exists apart from satisfaction, that no nation or principle is worth dying for, and that all human inequities are merely problems awaiting the application of intelligence — and they will burn a swath of anti-intellectualism so wide no American mind worth noticing will ever seem to have existed.

Pragmatism is, so to speak, the anti-intellectualism of the philosophers, and those who swallowed it were unwittingly but effectively drinking their own hemlock.

In the process, Progressives and Pragmatists alike missed the boat on two developments in the later 20th century that none of the Pragmatists could have foreseen: 1) the rise of a neo-orthodox religious critique (especially as championed by Reinhold Niebuhr in the 1950s) and the persistence of the seriousness with which theology was conducted as an intellectual enterprise in America; and 2) the emergence, in violent fashion, of the New Left in the 1960s. Both were a puzzle to Pragmatists, because there was no reason they could see for the dogmatic outlook behind both even to exist.

These two survivals, desperately unalike in all respects except the single conviction that there is an unmistakable pattern written into human experience and history, suggest that the moral philosophers’ instinct was truer than Pragmatism ever imagined, and that Americans want more from ideas than the Pragmatic reassurance that ideas are merely tools for experimentation.

Nor has the natural-law core of the moral-philosophy tradition ever faded entirely from the American intellectual scene. How could it? When Jefferson asserted that “we hold these truths to be self-evident,” he assumed that not only were there truths, but that everyone was compelled to acknowledge their existence.

Lincoln believed that the American order was founded on a “proposition” — not an experience, and certainly not on race, blood, ethnicity, or any of the other Romantic irrationalities. (Lincoln is frequently described as a “pragmatist”; but using the term this way makes it into little more than a synonym for “practical.” Strictly speaking, Lincoln was anything but a Pragmatist. He denounced slavery as ethically wrong, as a violation of natural law and natural theology — and would admit to no compromise with, and no scaling back of, his Emancipation Proclamation.)

The master narrative of Pragmatism would have us believe that all Americans are Pragmatists, and always have been; the history of American ideas---the real history ---tells us something very different. And that’s why the history of America in the Age of Obama, and beyond, will continue to be a clash of ideas.

Mr. Guelzo is the Henry R. Luce professor of the Civil War era at Gettysburg College.


Daniel Clay Russ said...

This is a heady discussion

Ultimately, America has to survive whether we are a predominantly religious people one day or a whether we mostly lose our faith on another day.

Pragmatist or Progressive, I should hope that the underpinnings of the country, the shared values and the ability and will to simply tolerate each others views and live in peace will prevail.


King of Ireland said...


Pragmatism seems to be almost synonymous with "Collectivism" from the little I have read on some comments you have made about all this. Dewey is the "Father of modern Education" which is so bad in so many ways is seems like it is set up to fail on purpose.

No Child Left Behind, the crescendo of modern Education based on Dewey, is the greatest fallacy of all time. It allows two kids in every class to be brats and hold ALL children in that class behind. One spends most of his time repeating himself for the kids that feel that have a right to listen when they want because the know you have to repeat it or be gone(fired).

I would love to learn more about all this. It is hard to follow when I have little background in this line of thought. Maybe a simple explanation of how pragmatism is different from right reason. Good post! I think you are on to something.

I have issues with the Evangelical Christian notion of moral absolutes but also think moral relativism is no answer. I think the solution my lie in understanding the difference between morals and ethics. I have given some thought to this but have come to no real conclusions.

I think Romans 1:19 and 2:14-15 may be a start in that they imply that one can understand God and natural law apart from the Bible through nature and conscience.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Well, K of I, I've been waiting for weeks for this essay to come out from behind the subscription wall so our readers might catch Guelzo's larger themes:

1) That the prevailing ["Harvard?"] narrative of American thought isn't necessarily the correct one;

2) That we're influenced by our modern educations not just in the narrative, but by Pragmatism [particularly Dewey's and Rawls'] itself far more deeply than we realize, that its presuppositions have largely become our presuppositions, and that we don't even know how they differ from the Founders'.

Or that they differ from the Founders' at all!

Pragmatism is quite better thought-out than the banal "whatever!" of relativism

however, Guezelo makes a stunning point, that the architects of Pragmatism became

convinced that the pursuit of truth was what turned men into absolutists and sent them into battle with each other...

Ouch. Better to not pursue it then!

Now, it can be argued that Pragmatism necessarily leads to materialism, utilitarianism, and in its best moments Progressivism or communitarianism [a term less pejorative than "collectivism'].

But religious belief could also lead to communitarianism through the "social gospel," like the Catholic Worker movement of the 1930s or today's Jim Wallis-style evangelicalism, so we could leave that part of the culture wars right now.

Since our faithful commenter Phil Johnson speaks so well of him so often, I thought that Allen Guelzo might be a more effective mirror in which to examine our presuppositions than less accredited authors such as your correspondent. We like to tell ourselves that religious belief, "right" reason, natural law, and Pragmatism can all be roads to the same place, a happy polity with liberty and justice for all.

Perhaps, perhaps not. What is justice, after all? What are rights? What is "good?" Do those roads all lead to the same answers? And as Guelzo disquietingly notes, does Pragmatism even permit us to ask?

bpabbott said...

Regarding No Child Left Behind, whether intended or not, the practical implementation does appear to have produced some exampes where many high achivers are held back, so that others are not "left behind".

Essentially there exist incentives against gifted, talented, and high-performing students.

Of course, that was not the intent, nor is it a fair assesment of the program. In general, education in the US has been improved by NCLB. However, I think more could be done.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Well, I'd hate for this meta-argument for the history of American thought to get sidetracked into a single current issue, but if it's true that

Essentially there exist incentives against gifted, talented, and high-performing students...

Pragmatism might find that an acceptable [Utilitarian? Just? Fair? Therefore "Good?"] outcome if the overall level were raised.

However, Aristotle for one would find it completely unacceptable, that excellence were sacrificed for "fairness," that the gifted [or more precisely, more diligent, "high-performing" and therefore deserving] student should be penalized in any way for his excellence. That is not "fair," it is not just, in Aristotle's view.

Neither is there any evidence the Founders would be down with it.

Anyway, this small point does illustrate some of what Guelzo's getting at---that "the greatest good for the greatest number" may be a defensible philosophy of politics [and it's regnant at the moment], but such Pragmatism is a modern, post-Founding sentiment, and in the least we should be aware of that.

King of Ireland said...

NCLB is not helping education at all. I taught at the best HS in DC. It sends kids to the Ivy League all the time. I had many of these kids in my class. The do not know anything. Why? Exactly what Tom just stated, "The greatest good for the greatest number." It is really Marx in disguise. I could give you about 100 practical examples but just listen to one:

I had some extra books in my class that a teacher would always send his ten kids to get. Why? They would not bring their books. Why? Because he gave them one. My kids always brought their books. Why? They knew I would call home if they did not have it and I was not giving one out. If the goal for the children to have books they giving them one is the worst thing you can do. NCLB actually encourages principals to write the teacher up if the kid does not have a book.

It is all one big excuse and they all blame the teachers. Which does them no good when they get to college and cannot read, write, or think critically.

I am not sure what the root to all this is but I have been suspicious of Dewey ever since I realized that if you did not spew out his theories in Education classes you would fail. If you do not teach the insane way they tell you then you are gone too. It is almost like a cult in some ways. You cannot question it.

How this specific issue relates to Tom's overall point is a worthy discussion. I think I am going to read the linked essay and go from there.

bpabbott said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tom Van Dyke said...

Well, King, I'd rather it be "Guelzo's point" so I might stay out of the line of fire for a change. My butt hurts.

Guelzo's point, his thesis, is that the Bible and the Enlightenment had come to an accommodation in the Founding and in the Scottish Enlightenment [as opposed to Voltaire's Enlightenment, which America rejected].

Therefore, our current "culture war" is a philosophical one, but between that accommodation in the Founding era and a new thing, a third thing, a tertium quid, a 20th century thing, Pragmatism.

It makes me think we're barking up the right tree around here, that America can never understand where we're going unless we know where we've been. That Guelzo's essay can be understood and appreciated around here makes doing this blog worthwhile, and he offers a new light for us all to check our presuppositions.

[I reckon I need to write him a fan letter.]

Phil Johnson said...

Professor Guelzo is the one who enticed me to really want to learn about American History through his lectures I watched over and over on DVD from The Teaching Company.

I will carefully read the article he has provided us here.

Phil Johnson said...

So, Tom, how did you get Guelzo to give you the article?
Are we to have access to him here?
My respect for Guelzo it very high.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Aw, Phil, I didn't exactly post this for you. And it's just excerpts. It's just a great piece of work and clarity on the history of American ideas, and ideals.

But part of my excitement was that it might touch your heart or your head. I remember pretty much everything you've ever written here believe it or not, including you quoting Guelzo approvingly. You're a person, not just a name. I'm not Robert Duvall and you're not Billy Bob and this ain't The Apostle, but it's something like that.

King of Ireland said...

anyone have Jon's email?

bpabbott said...

King, go here.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Oh, well. I was hoping some Pragmatists would show up to defend Dewey and Rawls and Progressivism and all that.

I guess Prof. Guelzo sent them packing to the hills. I reckoned he would.

Now that the results are in, I really do need to write him that fan letter. You too, Phil, since you've quoted him often around here.

I also held the Guelzo essay under the noses of some East Coast Straussians in another forum, Phil. Same reaction. Crickets chirping. If you write him first, tell him that too. So many people are full of hot air, but he takes their breath away.