Not essential to the faith

“Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America” by Richard Rorty

Richard Rorty (1931-2007) is known to professional philosophers and those in the humanities that care about things like cross-pollination in professional philosophy and comparative literature.  Rorty started his career as a member of the American analytic school, peopled by the intellectual progeny of Hans Reichenbach and Rudolf Carnap, with emphasis on philosophy of mind and language/semantics.  He changed his course in the late 1970s with the publication of Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, which attempted to show that the analytic enterprise, fundamentally, was little more than splitting hairs in the manner of the medieval Scholastics.  In short, it was worthless in addressing larger societal problems.  Rorty became entranced with American pragmatism, especially John Dewey, and wrote shorter-form essays on a wide variety of philosophical topics, in a sense evangelizing a new form of pragmatism.  He began his career at Wellesley College and ended it at Stanford University, spending many years in in the interim at the University of Virginia, where he wasn’t a member of the philosophy department, which probably didn’t want him.

Achieving Our Country is the book form of the Wililam E. Massey Sr. Lectures in the History of American Civilization that Rorty delivered at Harvard n 1997.  Though an academic for his entire professional career, the language in Achieving Our Country is accessible to the educated layperson — and those who can still read printed text in real dead-tree medium, not needing an app.

I recommend this book to bookworms (and former aspiring academics) like myself who are curious to know just what the fuck happened to the Left in the US since the 19th century.  Those of us who paid attention in American history class might remember the Progressive Era (1890s to 1920s), which was a long period of reforming social and political institutions in order to grant the common people greater voices and freedoms in their own lives and in the life of the nation.  It was a social experiment, and though we’re now just realizing the extent of the mess we’re in because of another social experiment (viz., the 1960s and early 70s), we can read the history books to get a better sense of what was going on back in those days.  What happened during the Progressive Era set the stage for the New Deal once the Great Depression set in in the 1920s.

In the first paragraph of the first lecture, “American National Pride: Whitman and Dewey,” Rorty says:

Emotional involvement with one’s country — feelings of intense shame or of glowing pride aroused by various parts of its history, and by various present-day national policies — is necessary if political deliberation is to be imaginative and productive.  Such deliberation will probably not occur unless pride outweighs shame. (p. 3)

Further down, Rorty continues:

In America, at the end of the twentieth century, few inspiring images and stories are being proffered.  The only version of national pride encouraged by American popular culture is a simpleminded militaristic chauvinism.  But such chauvinism is overshadowed by a widespread sense that national pride is no longer appropriate.  In both popular and elite culture, most descriptions of what America will be like in the twenty-first century are written in tones either of self-mockery or self-disgust. (p. 4)

1997 is when he said this, mind you.  Does any of it sound familiar?  We now have had more than 15 years to see if any of this rings true.  It does . . . it certainly does.  But, this state of affairs isn’t something that happened overnight.  Rorty places the blame on self-mockery and disgust squarely on the shoulders of what he calls, later on in the book, the “cultural Left” (and what I like to call the “kooky Left”).  This Left was born in the academy and retreated into the academy.  It had no interest in dealing with social problems, like the Progressive Left did.  Instead, it chose to see things through the lens of Foucault and Heidegger — and, later on, the feminists and cultural theorists.  In short, Progressive Leftists were, in Rorty’s words, agents who looked at the evils around them and tried to propose creative solutions, always trying to keep the flames of hope alive that things would get better.  Contemporary Leftists, in contrasts, are spectators.  The world is shit, the people in it are shit, and there’s nothing that can be done about it except get tenure and have money shoveled at them so that they can write article after article about postmodernism and, in our own age, feminism.  “The Academic Left has no projects to propose to America, no vision of a country to be achieved by building a consensus on the need for specific reforms,” says Rorty (p. 15).

Rorty continues the first lecture by focusing on Walt Whitman and John Dewey, both representatives of a view that the United States was “a finite, human, historical project, rather than in something eternal and nonhuman.”  (p. 17) Rather than go into the details, it suffices to say that both Whitman and Dewey tried to escape the European fixation on “knowledge” and finding a core, unchangeable human nature.  America needs no frame of reference, no “God’s-eye view.”  It is a constant project, infused with social hope.

Rory concludes the lecture by saying that contemporary, Foucauldian Leftists have an addiction to theory.  They wish to place everything within a theoretical framework, and are addicted to Marxian (pseudo) scientific rigor.  There is a distrust of humanism, retreating from practice to theory, and an abandonment of “the process of experimentation and decision that is an individual or a national life.” (p. 38)

I continue tomorrow with the other two lectures.

Enhanced by Zemanta


3 responses to ““Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America” by Richard Rorty

  1. Tia April 17, 2013 at 11:53 am

    Some good music came out of the 60s but the best thing was the emergence of the popularity of Eastern Wisdom Traditions. The reason why Buddhism, Yoga and other Eastern philosophies are mainstreaming today is because the seeds were planted in the 60s.

    The hippies took bits and pieces that they thought (rightly or wrongly) reflected their own values at the time, and today we have access to the real thing – sincere practitioners connected to authentic traditions that are teaching us so much more.

  2. Tia April 18, 2013 at 3:44 pm

    Pride in America must be based on external stuff, whether now or back in the imagined “golden age” (pre-1960s?), because the US is a young nation and has no old, foundational civilization.

    People came here to make money and get material stuff; whether the forebearers of our current Corporatocracy (greedy, rich slave owners like our so-called “founding fathers”), or poor immigrants who worked their arses off (like the Irish peasants).

    Its based on nothing but the body, its needs and wants. And such continues to this day, that’s why advertising is a multi-billion dollar industry and one of our biggest exports is porn.

    A philosophically based and high-minded culture, we’ve never been.

    However, like I mention above, if our interest in Eastern Wisdom Traditions continues, perhaps there will be hope for us after all.

  3. Pingback: “Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America” by Richard Rorty — Part 2 | adiaforon

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Henry Dampier

On the outer right side of history

Bloody shovel

Don't call it a spade

The Better Man Project ™

a journey into the depths

Adventures in Red Pill Wifery

A First Officer's Log

Renard Moreau Presents

Cool Miscellaneous Thoughts

Kingdom of Introversion

The World according to the 'introvert' and the 'nerd'

There Is No Game

It is not the game that changes, it is only yourself.

Mike Cernovich Presents Danger & Play

For those who want more out of life.


An honest, uncensored woman's state of mind.

Stares at the World

The Kingdom of Heaven is spread out upon the Earth, and men see it not.

Captain Capitalism

Not essential to the faith

Krauser PUA

An international man of mystery

Free Northerner

Iron Sharpens Iron

The Spearhead

Piercing the Shield of Ignorance


A community for men with the fighting spirit

Society of Amateur Gentlemen

The True Inheritance of Western Culture

Owning Your Shit

Not essential to the faith

%d bloggers like this: