Barbara Ehrenreich's "Dancing in the Streets" is a rather unique approach to the subject of a human behavior which has roots going back to, probably, prehistoric days. And her discussion of the topic will, I suspect, be controversial and criticized from some viewpoints, particularly those who may be bothered by the subtitle: "A History of Collective Joy." However, the fact is that this is one of humankind's oldest traditions, the communal celebration of whatever it was that was important to the community -- fertility, security, the annual harvest, or whatever. Promoters of an "autonomous" individualism take note: this is not a book you will happily read. On the other hand, those who think that the individual person doesn't really count -- only the group matters -- may not like it either.
Her purpose for writing this book is clearly stated in the introduction: "If ecstatic rituals and festivities were once so widespread, why is so little left of them today? If the 'techniques' of ecstasy represent an important part of the human cultural heritage, why have we forgotten them, if indeed we have?" Well, I, personally, am not so sure that her initial assumptions are, in fact, true. I think it might be argued that the ecstatic rituals and festivities are still present with us, but they have simply taken on a different "form" consonant with the requirements of a "mass civilization" which has evolved over the past few centuries. I am not as pessimistic as she appears to be about the "collective joy" phenomenon. I do have friends who regularly participate in such behavior, although not for the benefit of the media, and their "rituals," if that be the appropriate word, are not for public consumption.
One of the problems with reading any book which falls within the "history" genre is to grasp and understand the particular viewpoint of the author or the stance which the author takes in selecting the facts presented and the interpretation of those facts in the larger context of the era or topic under examination. We have, for instance, many books about American history which are written from a conservative point of view or from an economic-determinism point of view or from a socialist point of view or from some other sociopolitical point of view. History books of a truly "objective" character are rather rare; virtually every one of them is "framed" to present some bias which the author of the book wants the reader to accept. "Dancing in the Streets" is no exception.
So, first, let me get into the disclaimer mode, just to protect myself from being accused of selling out to many of the very ideas that I personally oppose. I am well aware that many (if not all) of Barbara Ehrenreich's works are written on the socialist, "radical" feminist, and neo-marxist pallet of class, racist, gender, and power-politics. I have read or heard her interviews and, from both the so-called "left" and "right" perspectives, studied the evaluations of her contributions to current thought. Furthermore, while I may disagree with some of her interpretations, I cannot disagree with the facts she selected for this book (citations provided) and, moreover, she does deserve a hearing, in spite of the opinions that some commentators may have regarding her own political and social philosophy.
That being noted, what can really be said about this new book of hers? Interesting? Yes. Valuable? Yes. Thoughtful? Yes. A good history of something which may have been lost or, probably in most cases, diminished -- the phenomenon of "collective" joy? Yes. The final say on the issue? I think not. But that doesn't matter. She has something to say and, in my opinion, that something needs to be addressed. The eleven chapters of her book, beginning with "The Archaic Roots of Ecstasy" and ending with "Carnivalizing Sports," I will, for the purposes of this review, ignore. These chapters simply provide the foundation for her conclusion section, which is what I found most interesting and to which I would like to direct my attention. Her conclusion section, titled "The Possibility of Revival," will likely upset some politically conservative readers but, nevertheless, Ehrenreich, in spite of her specific sociopolitical bias, has some important things to say and they should be thought about seriously.
For instance, she says: "There is no powerful faction in our divided world committed to upholding the glories of the feast and dance." I think that is true. Then she points out: "The Protestant fundamentalism of the United States and the Islamic radicalism of the Middle and Far East are both profoundly hostile to the ecstatic undertaking." I think that is also true. Both socio-religious views do seem to be opposed to what constitutes "joyful" celebration in the sense in which Ehrenreich describes it. Then, "Even communism, which might have been expected to celebrate human sociality, turned out...to be a drab and joyless state of affairs, in which, as in the capitalist West, mass spectacles and military parades replaced long-standing festive traditions." I also think that is true, as a brief perusal of modern social and political history will show. Any argument against these assertions?
While I do not accept the "class-warfare" or "class-consciousness" concept of historical determinism as a fundamental factor in the philosophy of history, the fact of the matter is that throughout human history one's social and/or economic status was important, even vital, to one's personal standing in the community, not to mention one's personal fulfillment and happiness, and simply cannot be cast aside, even though many commentators would like to deny it or ignore it. Like it or not, Ehrenreich is quite right in pointing out that civilization "tends to be hierarchical, with some class or group wielding power over the majority, and hierarchy is antagonistic to the festive and ecstatic tradition." And, for those of us who are lowercase "L" libertarians, she says that "This leaves hierarchical societies with no means of holding people together except for mass spectacles -- and force." And force, of course, we moderate libertarians understand -- and, for that matter, we don't much like mass spectacles either.
I recommend this book to all those interested in social history and cultural studies, as long as the reader recognizes that Ehrenreich writes from a particular sociopolitical perspective. Regardless, she has raised some interesting questions worth thinking about. Now that I'm finished with this review, I'm going out to find some of this "collective joy." In times like these, what other therapy is necessary?
