Customer Reviews

Culture Wars: The Struggle To Control The Family, Art, Education, Law, And Politics In America

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This was a textbook for me in seminary. I am in a conservative Presbyterian denomination and studied at a very conservative seminary, and this book got some interesting reviews from the students.

For me, it was a little difficult, since I don't have much background in sociology, but as I trudged through it I really grew to appreciate it. Some of my other classmates loved it too, but there were several who were quite taken aback by it. They didn't like it because Hunter didn't come out and condemn those who were on the wrong side of the culture wars.

But that is just the point - in this book he does not try to point out who is wrong and who is right, his object is to demonstrate why neither side is able to persuade, or prevail against the other.

Each side in the culture war has it's own set of presuppositions and assumptions that it speaks from. Because of this, that which seems most persuasive to one side completely misses those on the other side, because they don't share the same presuppositions. We are talking past one another.

Another problem that Hunter addresses is the issue of extremes and inflammatory rhetoric. Hunter says that, by and large, the culture wars are being fought by people on the extreme ends of their positions. So, the battle of the culture wars is usually fought with inflammatory rhetoric that doesn't persuade, it just angers.

As a sidenote I recently read a story about how communists used to train their young recruits. This particular communist said that when a young person adopted communism the best thing they could do was immediately set them on a street corner passing out communist leaflets. They would get attacked mercilessly, but this attack would only serve to harden and solidify the young communist in his or her beliefs.

I think Hunter shows this - the inflammatory rhetoric used by those on the extreme ends of the culture war debates, only serves to harden the other side in their respective positions.

So, if you are looking for quick answers, or a strategy to defeat your opponents, you won't find it here. But, if you are willing to begin to at least try to understand your opponents, as well as the larger issues, this is a great place to start.

Though the book was published originally published in 1991, it is no wonder that this book is still in print: it is as relevant as ever - and I daresay its relevance is increasing again.

In this book, Hunter gives us a wide-angle view of what is going on in American society since the second half of the twentieth century. Hunter argues that there is a culture war going on. Consequently, he aims at describing the historical and socio-political backgrounds of this cultural conflict.

In five parts, Hunter introduces the culture war (prologue and chapters 1 and 2), maps the lines of conflict (chapters 3 and 4), describes the means of the warfare: the discourse and technology (chapters 5 and 6), and extensively describes the fields of conflict: family, education, media and the arts, law, and electoral politics (chapters 7-11), and finally points out possibilities for a resolution (chapter 12 and the epilogue).

Hunter defines a cultural conflict as "political and social hostility rooted in different systems of moral understanding" (42). According to Hunter, the culture war in America revolves around different worldviews, "our most fundamental and cherished assumptions about how to order or lives - our own lives and our lives together in this society" (42). The contemporary culture war is "a struggle over national identity - over the meaning of America, who we have been in the past, who we are now, and perhaps most important, who we, as a nation, will aspire to become in the new millennium" (50).

Though Hunter acknowledges that the culture war is fought out mainy by the elite and 'knowledge workers', this cultural conflict intersects the lives of most Americans, because the conflict has an impact on every institution of American society: family, education, media, law, and politics.

Hunter writes brilliantly, avoiding jargon as much as possible and defining many concepts with exceptional clarity. This book is really an excellent read.

A personal note:
I am a European citizen and often quite puzzled by what is going on in America. This book gave me a really good perspective on the backgrounds of some American discussions, such as Intelligent Design and why the evolution-creation struggle constantly revolves around education textbooks.

Moreover, this book also made me realize that in contemporary Europe there are plenty of signs that, perhaps, a European culture war is at hand...

An eye-opener, most definitely!

The most significant contribution of James Davison Hunter's Culture Wars resides in the controversy and extensive scholarship that followed the publication of his book. In this work Hunter examines the discourse and methodologies of contempporary social movement organizations, and arrives at an interesting conclusion: while denominational differences may have declined in the second half of the 20th century, significant struggles within the realm of religion remain. The main divide that the author focuses on is that between the "orthodox" and "progressives." While the author does an admirable job of making connections between politics, religion, and social movements, his final anaylsis seems a bit simplistic. Hunter suggests that most of the current debates within American public culture can be expressed as struggles between two monolithic groups. However, other authors who have responded to Hunter's work have taken issue with this point, arguing that in terms of attitudes toward economic justice, the alignments that Hunter describes do not hold. In general, Hunter has provided an accessible, provocative account of contemporary conflicts in the public realm. His conclusions about what these conflicts mean for the future of American democracy are also quite insightful. The main limitation of the work is that his analysis may be overly simplistic, with not enough attention paid to the nuances of the debates that he describes.

The title of my review refers to the fact that this book, while published in '91, is still quite an accurate portrayal of how the culture wars are conducted. The passing of 13 years and tenure of two presidents has not served to ameliorate the culture war between 'traditionalists' and 'progressives.' Hunter, then, was certainly right.

Hunter's main thesis with this book is that, quite frankly, the culture war being fought over our schools, family policy, law, entertainment, etc. is not a war that will likely EVER engender a consensus. In fact, as it stands now, it seems even to proclude rational debate in favor of charged rhetoric, miscaricaturizations of opponents, and...well...mudslinging.

Hunter asserts this thesis, backs it up with chronicles of how the culture war has been conducted thus far, and conjectures as to why it is so. First, he says, we are dealing with core philosophic differences over questions to do with 'how the world should be.' Thus, both sides have deep emotions on the said issues. Second, there is no incentive to try and foster consensus because in an adversarial system like ours, the game is about power - the power to get your policy instituted and your other's quashed. Third, each 'side' operates using somewhat incompatible philosophic assumptions. To the anti-abortion-rights activist, it is a child and abortion is murder. To the abortion rights activist, it is only potential life and prohibiting abortion is denying the mother freedom of person. Where one sees freedom (either of the mother or fetus), the other sees either servitude or murder. Incomatibilities like these, says Hunter, will ensure that there will be no satisfactory end to the culture war - just a long, tiring, rhetorically charged, and endless, struggle.

Hunter makes his arguments well, is quite convincing, and is as objective as possible. He gives both sides due consideration, never caricaturizing them. While the book focuses on the culture wars from somewhat of a religious perspective (Catholic and Evangelical v. Liberal Protestant and Jew) in the end, the book is about the culture war PERIOD. Highly reccomended reading.

James Davison Hunter, a professor of sociology and religious studies at the University of Virginia, appears prescient in this 1992 book about the emergence of a religious conservatism in the United States that will dominate the political agenda through its emphasis on certain traditional values. He frames this as a "culture war" over the meaning of America and its place in the world. He found that the many battles over the arts, women's rights, gay rights, history, science, and a range of other issues were the canaries in the mind shaft for a realignment in American culture that emphasized moral and religious concerns. Of course, Hunter wrote this book long before the election of George W. Bush in 2000 and the resultant dominance of these issues on the national stage.

Hunter concludes that the debate in this culture war revolves around--rather than stances on Jesus Christ, Luther, or Calvin--on how one reacts to the ideas of Rousseau, Locke, or Voltaire (including their philosophical heirs, especially Nietzsche and Rorty). "The politically relevant world-historical event, in other words," Hunter writes, "is now the secular Enlightenment of the eighteenth century and its philosophical aftermath. This is what inspires the divisions of public culture in the United States today" (p. 132). He also notes that "what is ultimately at stake is the ability to define the rules by which moral conflict of this kind is to be resolved" (p. 271). Hunter believes that "the culture war is rooted in an ongoing realignment of American public culture and has become institutionalized chiefly through special-purpose organizations, denominations, political parties, and branches of government....In the end, however, the opposing visions become, as one would say in the tide though ponderous jargon of social science, a reality sui generis: a reality much larger than, and indeed autonomous from, the sum total of individuals and organizations that give expression to the conflict. These competing moral visions, and the rhetoric that sustains them, become the defining forces of public life" (pp. 290-91).

He does not see this culture wart as something that will eventually reach a balance; a rationally balanced negotiated settlement of the conflict does not seem possible. Instead, Hunter believes that one side or the other will gain the upper hand and dominate the culture. "The principal reason," he contends, "is that the most vocal advocates at either end of the cultural axis are not inclined toward working for a genuinely pluralistic resolution" (p. 298). In terms of who has the edge toward victory in this culture war, Hunter thinks "the moral vision of the orthodox alliance, particularly as championed by the Evangelical Protestant community, is in a strong position to actually dominate American public discourse in the near future" (p. 299). This is because they bring a passion and organization to the fight not present on the other side. Despite the resources and power of modernity and secularism, they are far from monolithic and their organization has not been nearly as effective.

Hunter hopes to see the emergence of a creative tension between the forces on both sides of the culture wars to create a balanced compromise position. That may yet take place, but if the first decade of the twenty-first century in the U.S. is any example it appears that the forces of orthodoxy and traditional values have an upper hand. The dialogue in this debate continues. Hunter has offered an excellent early analysis of what was just emerging in the early 1990s as THE cultural divide in the United States.

Few of us, I think it's safe to say, question the truism that contemporary culture chatters like an activated geiger counter, emitting danger signals, signs of ominous decay if not collapse. But finding thoughtful analyses (rather than off-hand journalistic impressions) of the situation is frequently difficult. So James Davison Hunter, a sociologist at the University of Virginia, rendered us sizeable service in Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America (New York: Basic Books, c. 1991).
Davison begins his book with some pointed portraits of American citizens deeply divided over such issues as abortion, homosexuality, and public school curricula. On both sides (folks he labels "orthodox" and "progressive") of such issues you find passionately committed individuals who, un¬for¬tunately in Davison's view, generally hurl anathemas rather than listen to each other. Indeed, they generally "talk past" (p. 131) each other. The issues are important! They merit passion! "But these differences are often inten¬sified and aggravated by the way they are present¬ed in public" (p. 34). They need to be honestly discussed lest they divide this nation's body politic, for "At stake is how we as Americans will order our lives together" (p. 34). You suspect Davison fears this nation might divide, as it once did in the Civil War, over irreconcilable moral positions.
The chasm dividing the nation is easily discerned. There are the "orthodox" and the "progressives." Folks committed to "orthodoxy," Davison says, share an allegiance to "an external, definable, and transcendent authority" whereas those committed to "progressivism" embrace modernity and tend "to resymbolize historic faiths according to the prevailing assumptions of contem¬porary life" (pp. 44-45). For example, "orthodox" persons generally label premarital sex "morally wrong" whereas "progressives" often condone it. These moral and religious convictions are increasingly influencing the political agenda--as was evident in the 1992 Republican Convention. Indeed, one survey found "that the relative embrace of orthodoxy was the single most important explanatory factor in sorting out variation in the elite political values," counting for more than such things as "social class background, race, ethnicity, gender, the size of the organization they work in, and the degree of pietism by which they individually live" (p. 97).
Consequently, you increasingly find "orthodox" Protestants feeling more akin to "orthodox" Catho¬lics and Jews than to "progressives" in their own "household of faith." Denominational loyalties have rapidly eroded--something most of us (at least on college campuses) have noted. Concurrently, there have appeared a multitude of special-interest and critical-cause para-church organizations. One the one side you find James Dobson's "Focus on the Family," while on the other side you find Norman Lear's "People for the American Way." They've mastered the techniques of modern media--radio, TV, and especially mass-mailings. There's little love lost, or dialogue between, supporters of such polarized positions! They are, in fact, "competing moral visions" of what this nation should be. (And their very sur¬vival demands they stress the extremes that isolate them from all but the resolutely faithful!)
They differ on the reading of American history. To a number of Evangelical Protestants, the U.S. was providentially conceived and guided--a theme celebrated by Peter Marshall and David Marvel in The Light and the Glory. We were, and ought to be, they argue, a religious people. A biblical faith enabled our Founding Fathers to establish free institutions which, perhaps more than anything else, encourage free enterprise capitalism.
By contrast, the progressive interpretation of U.S. history insists "that secularity was the dominant trait of American society" (p. 113). In the opinion of Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., "'The American mind is by nature and tradition skeptical, irreverent, pluralistic and relativistic'; elsewhere he says, `Relati¬vism is the American way'" (p. 113). That's the voice of Harvard Univ¬ersity and the Kennedy Camelot!
Whereas the orthodox define "freedom" economically, the progressives define it socially (e.g. permissive sexuality); the orthodox define "justice" socially (criminals should get what's due them) while the progressives define it economically (welfare should provide all for all).
Both sides, of course, appeal to "moral" authorities! But they look to different authorities! The other-worldly orthodox trust "a dynamic reality that is independent of, prior to, and more powerful than human experience" (p. 120). The this-worldly progressives root their ethics in a faith in human experience, education, personal conviction.
Both sides have, consequently, increasingly resorted to warlike strategies. Intolerant, biased, vicious assaults and character assassinations have characterized both groups' public pronounce¬ments. Discrediting and defeating one's opponent has become the chief objective the culture wars--in this arena, it's total war! Consider the Clarence Thomas hearings. Consider the recent election. Thoughtful discussions of substantive issues frequently get lost in the innuendos and aspersions loosely tossed about like hand grenades.
The primary "fields of conflict" where the war's being waged are these: family; education; media and the arts; law; and electoral politics. Davison details the struggles going on in these areas, then gives a "parting note": "the culture war is rooted in an ongoing realignment of American public culture and has become institutionalized chiefly through special-purpose organizations, denominations, political parties, and branches of government. The fundamental disagreements that characterize the culture war, we have seen, become even further aggravated by virtue of the technology of public discourse, the means by which disagreements and voiced in public. In the end, however, the opposing moral visions become, as one would say in the tidy though ponderous jargon of social science, a reality sui generis: a reality much larger than, and indeed autonomous from, the sum total of individuals and organizations that give expression to the conflict. These competing moral visions, and the rhetoric that sustains them, become the defining forces of public life" (pp. 290-291).
Yet the country is not as polarized as it may seem. Our cultural enemies may not be as wrong-headed as they seem. The issues may not be as simple as they seem. If I'm reading Davison rightly, he seems to suggest that if only we'd turn off the TV and walk across the street and talk to our neighbor we might get a better perspective on the common life we all should value. If only we'd ignore the direct-mail solicitations and deal with the people and needs in our local congregations, perhaps we'd be more in touch with the real issues, ones we can actually affect, those we need to deal with rather than shout about!

I understand that Hunter is focusing on trends in religion, but he does discuss the origins of the polarization we call the "culture wars". How he manages to do this without mentioning the Civil War or the Civil Rights struggles of the 1950's-60's is beyond me. Yes, there were "orthodox" and "progressive" tensions before Brown vs Board of Ed (mentioned in passing on page 22), but when the white Protestants *really* started to feel that "their world was being threatened" (page 70) was with Brown vs Board of Ed (1954). All the other issues he addresses (women's rights, abortion, gays) are from much later and were much less violent than the civil rights struggle, which rocked the country and took several lives. "Mississippi Burning" was not about the ERA. Hunter was born in 1955 and writes as though history began when he was in high school. Sorry, pal; I remember the '50's and it wasn't just about progressivism or Creationism, and certainly not about gays or abortion or school prayer - those were all later. Blood flowed, and you cannot write about America without dealing with race in a serious way. Brown, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, are the reasons the "orthodox" south turned from the Democrats to the GOP and why the south is so "red" today. A far superior analysis is found in Brownstein's "The Second Civil War", whose analysis agrees much more closely with my personal experience. The Second Civil War: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America Hunter is not wrong; he's just woefully incomplete in his analysis.

In this work Hunter looks at the culture wars and how they play out in the fields of the family, education, government and the media. His book is well researched and makes several good points. For instance, he argues that both sides must agree on basic definitions and standards before debate can make any sense. I had trouble with two aspects, though.

First of all, although the first half of the book is devoted to our history and earlier culture conflicts, Hunter never adequately explains how those fights led to our present one. How, for instance, does Protestant-Catholic argument about Bible use in public schools translate into today's argument over condom distribution? How does discrimination against Jews cease while controversy over homosexuals increases? It is clear that new coalitions have formed, but it is less clear just why.

Secondly, Hunter has an bothersome tendency to sprinkle the book with sociological jargon. He may be a sociologist, but the terms don't add much to our knowledge. Groups are said, for example, to use positive and negative face when talking about themselves and their opponents. But in the end isn't mud slinging simply mudslinging. Isn't ugliness mere ugliness. And while any book of this kind needs examples, Hunter goes overboard by providing examples everywhere. As a result the book becomes hopelessly predictable at times.