Customer Reviews

The House of Intellect (Perennial Classics)

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

 

 

This is a book that should be bought two at a time (one to lend to friends). Serious students should return to it every few years along with George Orwell's essay on politics and the English language and C Wright Mills' appendix on intellectual craftsmanship in "The Sociological Imagination".

Barzun approached his special field of cultural history in a refreshingly irreverent manner. "You may like to think of culture - I often do - as an enormous pumpkin, hard to penetrate, full of uncharted hollows and recesses for cultural critics to get lost in, and stuffed with seeds of uncertain contents and destiny."

Early in his career he produced a connected series of books, starting with 'The French Race" (1932) and 'Race: A Study in Superstition" (1937 and 1965), moving on to "Darwin, Marx, Wagner" (1941) and "Romanticism and the Modern Ego" (1943). The major themes that connect these studies are (a) the appeal to race, class or nation to supply a new motive power for social change and (b) the an attempt to inject new life into the idols of Progress and Fatalism.

A subsequent theme in his work is the parlous state of learning and especially the widespread lack of understanding of the "house rules" for productive intellectual activity. The relevant books here are "The House of Intellect" (1959), "Science: The Glorious Entertainment"(1964) and "The American University" (1968).

The message of "The House of Intellect" is that its inhabitants, the intellectuals themselves, have trashed the house. The blame cannot be placed with the crassness or greed of big business, the shallowness of a consumer society, or the ignorance of the uneducated. The major malign influences are distorted perceptions of the nature and function of Art, Science and Philanthropy. These things have their value and their place, but Barzun shows how they have become diverted from their proper ends to impose in a destructive manner upon the conditions of scholarship and the life of the mind.

His comments on art later grew into a whole volume, "The Uses and Abuses of Art" and his views on the uses and abuses of science expanded into a whole book as well. The spirit of Philanthropy is expressed though the well-meant allocations of funds from the great foundations. However Barzun details how the net effect of this funding, especially that provided for conferences, is to dissipate rather than to concentrate thought, to take up time and effort on apparent novelties at the expense of solid and genuine but not superficially exciting or "relevant" work. A whole "grant application" industry emerged, engaging time and talents for trivial purposes, often enough dedicated to outright hokum, to the detriment of the proper function of intellectuals and intellect.

This book has "white dwarf" status because there is more in it each time it is re-read. Further online commentary on Barzun's achievement can be found with a google search Barzun + Rathouse.

I recently read Barzun's book "Critical Questions" in search of some better understanding of my reactions to some contemporary art. I have rediscovered one of the most incisive thinkers and clearest writers I have ever had the pleasure to read.

I have a strong memory of reading "The House of Intellect" as a college student. It is one of the very few books that I can remember from those long ago days when I was only learning to learn. "The House..." had a positive and long lasting effect on my desire to study and study well.

I am in the process of rereading "The House..." Barzun points to example after example in the world around him (50 years ago) of prominent critics and public opinion molders who are merely aping current fashions in thought and who are simply bending and arranging facts to support their pet opinions.

You will learn from Barzun why "The House..." must have scholarly discipline which alone can offer us a shot at truth. Those who are labor in the intellectual vineyards are failing themselves and the public if they allow themselves to shortcut their research, report merely what is acceptable or just plain manipulate their facts.

The points Barzun makes are just as true today as they were in the 1950's. The trends in faulty thinking and reporting on certain topics continue up to 2004. Reading Barzun at least will help you to view what you read and what you hear with a more reliable filter.

I came upon this book when reading reviews for Barzun's more recent "From Dawn to Decadence". The very positive reviews about "The House of intellect" are absolutely right...this is a masterpiece. Where "From Dawn to Decadence" is a wonderful historical panorama, "The House of Intellect" instructs how the intellect should properly be used. He starts with a criticism of the misuse of intellect by the educators of his day, and then moves on to cover the proper use of intellect in all our modern affairs. Most insightful was his admonition to understand how truly dangerous ideas can be! Finally, he even applies intellect to the romantic side of mental life, including affairs of the heart. Ideas, intellect, intellectual, ideologue--don't be confused about what these mean. Read it...it will change how you think!

As someone who would like to live in the 'House of Intellect' - but is probably more suited to the wood shed of Intellect - my diversions have often been outside the mainstream. Occasionally, I've been able to interest my family and friends in these pursuits, which they may have initially discounted as boring or dull. This has led me to believe that much of the resistance against a celebration of Intellect today is rooted in its presentation. Generally speaking (and very generally), some people who have the power to foster a culture that places a premium on Intellect may actually instead surround it with barriers, as if to keep it the property of their exclusive group. In this way, certain 'intellectuals' have spawned a habit of 'anti-intellectualism'.

Or so it's seemed that way to me - I suppose there are many factors. But it was with great interest I read about Mr. Barzun's book, 'The House of Intellect', along with its original subtitle, "How Intellect, the prime force in Western civilization, is being destroyed by our culture in the name of Art, Science, and Philanthropy". Honestly, I think my initial interest was simply a desire to read someone who would confirm my assumptions about the state of Intellect today. It isn't as though I think activity in Intellect has vanished, but as a member of the non-collegiate, blue-collar pragmatist crowd, I feel bombarded by media that is not only hostile toward the mind, but purposely seeks to render it comatose. So it was a pleasing idea to seek shelter in 'The House of Intellect', and to come in out of the vacuous, insulting rain of celebrity culture and ideological blather.

Mr. Barzun must have looked out on a similar situation when he began writing 'The House of Intellect', which was published in 1959 - although I'd wager that the assault against Intellect has only intensified, perhaps even by orders of magnitude. That the author describes an era - one that seems positively exalted by today's intellectual standards - in terms uniquely fitted to the present slightly diminishes the urgency of his reasoning, though not its accuracy. To my mind, Mr. Barzun amply explains his theories stated in his subtitle, and then expands the idea to cover cultural and societal obstacles to advancing Intellect, such as public opinion, manners in conversation, philanthropic foundations, and education. In each of these sections, I found a lot to agree with, though this is probably like preaching to the choir. Unfortunately, I also felt that if someone were predisposed to take the opposite side of Mr. Barzun's arguments, they might notice his occasional use of straw man arguments, and a tendency to generalize.

Another, more delicate issue that Mr. Barzun hints at is the tactics necessary to build a 'House of Intellect'. Although his book is not a tract, or a how-to, or even an intellectual's manifesto, it does provide, for comparison, alternative methods to the actions that have failed to sustain Intellect. These alternatives have a scent of Social Darwinism about them that may be uncomfortable for contemporary readers, although that doesn't make them any less viable. But let me be perfectly clear: Mr. Barzun is not advocating any course of action to rectify the state of Intellect. He simply outlines causes and conditions he believes led to its weakened representation in society, and then mentions possible responses to those conditions other than the prevailing blueprint.

Society took some of these 'course corrections' in subsequent years, for the sake of common sense and necessity. However, the majority of the problems Mr. Barzun saw fifty years ago are still with us - and that seems unlikely to change, either from the efforts of individuals or well-intentioned groups. That is probably for the best; societies that have attempted to 'engineer' a culture of Intellect (or perhaps intellectuals who have attempted to engineer societies of Intellect) can be extremely dangerous - a subject Mr. Barzun also addresses. Instead, it seems to me that Intellect is a fluid thing, ebbing and flowing at or below capacity according to the foundation a society prepares for it and according to that society's unconscious needs or wishes. The more successful a society has become, the less need it might feel toward enlarging its 'house of Intellect', and would be content to rely on past achievements. I would suspect our current state of Intellect is indicative of this.

Regardless, I found value in 'The House of Intellect' beyond the commiseration I had expected. On the surface, Mr. Barzun's analysis of the contemporary state of Intellect is dry and bleak - maybe a bit hopeless, but on the personal level, there are simple things I can do to encourage and celebrate Intellect - and yet yield to moderation when it's called for - among my circle of family and friends. This seems of most value to me. Building a tradition of Intellect in society may be desirable and wished-for, but that is no replacement for having it at home.

If this is a paperback then it is not a 1st edition copy of this book. The first edition is a hardcover cloth bound book. Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York. 1959