The Closing of the American Mind

Allan Bloom

New York: Touchstone, 1987; Pages: 382

I am extremely ambivalent about this book. It is a curious mixture of insight that stops short of its own conclusions, and profundity marred with biases. As far as I can tell, the problem can be summarized simply. Bloom is a deep, very erudite, thinker whose conservatism reduces his thoughts to nostalgia. Many of the observations and conclusions he makes (books, music, etc.) have a familiar ring for me, perhaps both he and I have been reading too much Nietzsche and too many of the same authors in general. However, the spin he puts when connecting them to modernity is distasteful. His longing for the "classical" is simply an echo of his conservatism, not rationality. Classical music is no more Dionysian than heavy metal.

The introduction is a brilliant concise indictment of the modern "openness" of the mind, which is simply the unquestioning dogmatic self-contradictory cultural relativism. Bloom argues that proper openness has nothing to do with what passes for it these days. The uniquely Western belief that other cultures are worth studying, which has its roots in the Greek desire to learn more about others in order to find/construct a better life, has degenerated into a mindless assertion of the equal worth of other cultures. The rationality that was the cornerstone at the creation of the American nation, and which led to a culture firmly based on the belief of inalienable rights, has been replaced by mysticism which perverts the protection of individual rights into protection of minorities. The end is all but surprising---the proliferation of opinions is taken to be a proof of their equal validity and hence, of the relativity of truth. This conclusion is arrived at without ratiocination, without analysis, and without empirical facts. It is an article of faith, an indoctrination that is responsible for the closing of American mind; its closing to the pursuit of better life, which cannot happen when the means of evaluating alternatives is destroyed, and the desire to compare and contrast---uprooted.

The tragic irony is that Western thought is really the only one that admits the possibility of goodness in other cultures. Most cultures assert their own primacy and goodness, and regard others as inferior. However, liberal studies ignore this and when they debunk the Western ideal, they implicitly reject the very thing they are trying to defend. To top it off, the approach leaves people stumped when asked a basic moral question: if you were a British administrator in India, would you permit the burning of a wife at the funeral of her husband? I have asked my students similar questions: if you could prevent the practice of clitoridectomy in Africa, would you do so? If you could stop the stoning of unfaithful wives in Saudi Arabia, would you do it? If you could change the culture that encourages sex practices conducive to AIDS in Africa, would you do it? Invariably, the quickest answers were affirmative. This should be expected, these acts clash profoundly with basic tenets of our Western culture. But this asserts the primacy of our way over theirs. When confronted with this, many students backtrack into a relativist posture until they throw up their hands in despair and proclaim the basic right of other cultures to exist in their own way. The tension that this conclusion creates is very uncomfortable and cannot be resolved until the ability to judge is restored.

STUDENTS. Tabula Rasa, but not too rasa: political and religious indoctrination very good for the mind/soul. Unfortunately, the book dives into mediocrity almost immediately. Bloom states three propositions (actually, assertions based on his own personal experience) and generalizes to characterize the entire US (and European) student body populations. Now, William Blake said that to generalize is to be an idiot, and Bloom is the unwitting hapless proof of Blake's insight.

First, it has been known for some time that European high schools produce more literate students than American schools. Being a product of such an elite school, and then spending my next 10 years in American universities as an undergraduate and a graduate student, I am almost certain that this is indeed the case. One would think this was a criticism of US schools. Not according to Bloom. You see, because the US "has one of the longest uninterrupted political traditions of any nation in the world" (p.54), students could "begin with nothing". Obviously, this is a bizarre argument because although the author tries to equate being literate with being a particular national, his position is untenable. I do not count myself any more Bulgarian than the most illiterate person in my country. I do count myself more educated than many, and certainly more cultured, but not more Bulgarian. I don't think a French person would define himself or herself through having been brought up with Descartes or Pascal. Now, it may be true that "to Americans, Homer, Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, Goethe belong to everyone or to `civilization'" (p.54) but it is blatantly false that Europeans regard them as regional authors. My education has been shaped by the very same values, intellectual ideas, and philosophical positions these diverse people represent, and it has been much enriched by the experience. To top it off, I don't know what American students the author has encountered as professor, but my experience so far has not been positive in that respect. US students are among the most close-minded, ill-equipped to withstand criticism or defend their views (if they have them), and most anti-intellectual of the ones I have seen. And yes, it is a cultural and educational thing.

The second part of Bloom's argument, that the political consciousness defines Americanism may also be true, but it is unrelated to the level and/or problem of education. One may very well argue the opposite of what Bloom does: rising levels of education are responsible for destroying the civic culture, the public spirit, the very consciousness he wants to defend. The reason is twofold: alienation due to cynicism and alienation due to the destruction of the small religious community: the local church. I am not lamenting here, just pointing out alternative explanations. This is necessary because what Bloom does next is predictable: a vicious attack on the forces from the left that destroy the "unity, grandeur and attending folklore of the founding heritage" (p.55). The tirade is tiresome, so I won't dwell on it.

Third, Bloom bemoans the disappearance of religion (pp.56-9) and blames all sorts of social evils on the apparently rampant atheism that has replaced it. By now, this should be a familiar dirge. According to the author, the disintegration of the family, and the inability to raise or educate children are predictable consequences of this ungodly behavior. To top it off, he bluntly states that personal growth is impossible without religion (pp.59-60). This is terribly inaccurate (most famous people have been atheists or agnostics), offensive (most of the highly intelligent people I know, including myself, are atheists or agnostics), and biased (throughout his enlightened discussion, Bloom never mentions any alternatives to Puritan Christianity). What Bloom apparently has trouble understanding is a simple concept: schools are the place where students should acquire the tools to enable them to think for themselves. Language is not neutral, so much is true, but the formal methods of the natural sciences can be applied to diverse situations. I would wager that a well-educated engineer is better equipped to deal with just about anything than a religious devotee.

Clear thinking is the sign of a working mind, and the author disqualifies himself very fast. Take, for example, the particularly egregious example from page 60 (paragraph 2), which contains the following sentences. "I am not saying anything so trite as that life is fuller when people have myths to live by. I mean rather that a life based on the Book is closer to the truth, that it provides the material for deeper research in and access to the real nature of things." One can cringe at the enormous bias, superficiality, and inanity of the assertion. Or one can try to decipher it. First, the author assumes that "the truth" exists and it can be known. Second, he assumes that the Bible is the key to it. Both assumptions are unprovable and quite objectionable. But casting the religious/moralistic matter aside, Bloom's position is trite, full of superficialities, and a material of satire. The problem is his "profound" revelation of "the true nature of things." Anyone who knows what Bloom means (including the author) is entitled to request a monetary reward from me. Despite the castigation of the unquestioning mind, Bloom serves us one cliché after another. Everyone should be instantly suspicious of words like "true nature," "essence of things," and even "the truth." Everyone. Instantly. By the way, the trite first sentence is perhaps the most profound in the book thus far.

BOOKS. Suddenly, Bloom finds his way back into rational thought with this chapter. The dearth of books that "count" for students is a reflection of how the "lack of education simply results in students' seeking for enlightenment whenever it is readily available, without being able to distinguish between the sublime and trash" (p.64). There are no heroes from the classics to provide "role models," or standards to judge oneself by. Bloom has a partial explanation, with which I emphatically agree---"the latest enemy of the vitality of classic texts is feminism" (p.65). Read up on this, you will agree as well.

MUSIC. The brief essay on music and its function as an expression of the barbaric violence of the soul is fascinating. The chapter then lunges head first into a shallow and ill-informed criticism of modern music, and especially the evils of rock. If it were written today, there's no doubt Mr. Bloom would be targeting Britney Spears and NSYNC (although in this case, he would have also been justified). The treatise on rock is written by someone who has had limited exposure and a very narrow understanding of this music. For a much better balanced view, check out Deena Weinstein's excellent "Heavy Metal". Bloom really has trouble realizing that new art forms/expressions are perfectly valid and potent manifestations of the very same urges he admires. There is something (a lot) to be said about commercialism, prepackaged tastes, and sappy sentimentality, so MTV bashing applies here. However, the rant about rock leading to sex, violence, and drugs, is a nothing more than the old discredited sermon. Well, maybe sex, but that is a good thing.

Excellent point on p.114 about the consequences of women's liberation: "in the old order they [women] were subordinated and dependent on men; in the new order they are isolated, needing men, but not able to count on them." This is followed by a brilliant passage on the consequences of individualism, which negated the family (Rousseau vs Mill).

RELATIONSHIPS. This is one of the longest and most passionate chapters in the book. Bloom covers everything from self-perception, life with/among others, and family, to sex. In a disturbing analysis, he labels students "nice," an apt, albeit ironic, description of the self-centered individuals haunting the college halls with little care beyond their own well-being, however defined. The next quality he tackles, egalitarianism, is a controversial topic. Elitists, like myself, often scoff at the idea. I have yet to meet a student who is capable of defending this mystical devotion. Race is another troubling concept. Although nominally equal, blacks and whites are manifestly different. The two groups tend to stay separate, and the affirmative action has tarnished the diplomas for minorities because prospective employers discount their meaning. My experience confirms this: students who enter college through some sort of AA, are at a disadvantage because of poor preparation. Their performance is worse, and they are frequently in danger of failing courses. If professors are pressured into passing them, their achievements are hollow.

Finally, Bloom goes through sex, family, divorce, separateness, and eroticism (or lack of it). Although I tend to disagree that early sexual experience deprives people of sensuality, I do agree that a trivialized sexual experience of the nameless vulgar variety that abounds today is probably responsible for demeaning the act. The extreme individualism, which prohibits investment/dependency on another human being, is seen as the cause of disintegrating families and high divorce rates. There is a lot of common sense to this, and even though the traditional family may not be the answer to the problem, the current 50-50 compromise is an unworkable "solution." Finally, the brilliant brief section on eroticism is worth the entire chapter. Forget the unimaginative brute Freud and his pseudoscientific gibberish. I (like Bloom) refuse to equate my sensibility and that of your average Joe. Sexual gratification is only part of the story, Eros is the other, the sublime, the truly important one, and it comes only to the rich mind/imagination. Baudelaire certainly comes to mind.

March 12, 2000. BLS

@BOOK{bloom-87:closing,
    TITLE     = {The Closing of the American Mind},
    AUTHOR    = {Allan Bloom},
    YEAR      = {1987},
    PUBLISHER = {Touchstone},
    ADDRESS   = {New York},
    ISBN      = {0-671-65715-1 (pbk.)},
    NOTE      = {Pp. 382}
}