Customer Reviews

Richard Hofstadter: An Intellectual Biography

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

If you went to college and/or graduate school in the late 1950's or 1960's, chances are very good you read at least one of Richard Hofstadter's (1916-1970) books. Particularly "The American Political Tradition," "The Age of Reform," "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," and "Paranoid Style in American Politics" were ubiquitous on college reading lists. And this was for good reason: Hofstadter many believe was the most incisive and insightful American historians of the first two-thirds of the 20th century. Coupled with his perceptive and innovative analytical abilities were writing talents that made his books fascinating to read.

Until now, there has not really been a full-scale biography of Hofstadter. This book, by David S. Brown, fills that gap very nicely. Brown has well handled the central challenge of writing about Hofstadter--how much attention should be devoted to the books and how much to the man? Someone who was born in the 1960's, as was the author, might well wonder what all the excitement was about. Brown's excellent discussions of the various Hofstadter volumes will clue such readers into his approach, prejudices, accomplishments, and contributions to the writing of American history. One also gets a pretty solid feel for Hofstadter the man as well. Brown has interviewed many who knew Hofstadter: his students (such as Dorothy Ross) and his colleagues at Columbia. He scoured oral history collections and published recollections as well. One of the most effective dimensions of the book is that Brown incorporates discussions of some leading historical interpretations that appeared at the same time as Hofstadter's books--some agreed with Hofstadter, others took issue with various of his positions, and an interesting dialogue resulted.

The research is solid; the writing flows very well, and the narrative is quite interesting. A helpful bibliographic essay, "The Search for Richard Hofstadter," concludes the volume and is quite useful. For anyone interested in the development of 20th century American historiography, or who is just curious about what was going on in this country's political history, Brown's book is a valuable and stimulating introduction.

"Before you study the history, study the historian. . . The historian, being an individual, is also a product of history, and of society; and it is in this twofold light that the student of history must learn to regard him." So advised the British historian E.H. Carr, and it is in this spirit that David Brown's "Richard Hofstadter: An Intellectual Biography" is written.

I recall reading bits of Hofstadter in graduate school and remember him as a popular postwar historian who championed New Deal liberalism. Brown's biography traces the development of Hofstadter's thoughts from his origins in ethnically diverse Buffalo, NY--born in 1916 to a Jewish father and German Lutheran mother--and continues through the great upheavals and traumas of the twentieth century. At every stage in the unrolling of the great drama--the Great Depression, the New Deal, WWII, postwar extremism--Hofstadter reacted with passion, empathy, and sharp criticism. Hofstadter understood that America was changing and could no longer claim a hegemonic Protestant ideal. The pluralism from which he came allowed Hofstadter to see that civil rights, immigration, and changing regional beliefs were components in the increasing pluralism in America which could only function to the greatest benefit by opposing the paranoia, populism, and anti-intellectualism of McCarthy and Goldwater in the postwar era. Some have accused Hofstadter of paranoia himself when he warned of fascist tendencies, including "jingoism, economic ultra-conservatism, and racial animosity" of the growing conservative movement, but history has shown how prescient Hofstadter was as we struggle today in a climate of "nation-building, abuse of the national security state, and imperial presidencies." Hofstadter and Brown remind us of the fragility of liberalism and why the ideas and history it produced matter to us today. Hofstadter always sought the center, believing that discussions beginning from consensus were more productive than arguments that exacerbated differences. We would all do well to remember his wisdom.

Richard Hofstader is one of the foremost US Historians of this century even though his career was less than half as long as Arthur Schlesinger's and included no service to an incumbent President. His work is especially noted for interpretations reflecting a multiethnic more urban America and also lessons from social theory. Immense prestige within the scholarly community was complemented by books that are readable and more `popular' than most histories. Almost all College Graduates, at least through the 70's will have read one or more of his books. Continually historians and others have been stimulated by discussions of "social Darwinism," "anti-Intellectualism" and a "paranoid style" in American politics as well as his `take' on American Political thought and the Progressive era.

Interests in American intellectual history and in American historiography are central to this study. Insights on regionalism and politics in the academe add to the book. The Morningside and general New York intellectual environment are also evident. There is even some insight into the student rebellion of 1968 and its consequences.

My own enthusiasm is partly personal; I attended Columbia as a History major starting in the same class as Hofstader's son Danny (although I graduated a year early). Many of the personalities mentioned, as well as guest speakers at the Graduate History Lounge like Hannah Arendt and Phillip Curtin were part of my experience and some of Hofstader's books enlightened History and Government courses. However, any historian and especially students of the US should find much of interest.

David Brown does an excellent job in this "intellectual biography". There is probably no way it could be authored with the more exciting style of Hofstader himself. Nor will it find so broad a readership as books like "The American Political Tradition". It is a shame hat so many of Hofstader's works are out of print although this does reflect some further evolution in interpretation as well as new themes and approaches. Times have changed and the numbers of PhD's has boomed with ever more narrow studies and perhaps fewer stimulating interpretive books for the `educated reader'. As education has become increasingly more like job training and history as well as language and other substantial general education and critical thinking courses have reduced places in education intellectual and public discourse have eroded.

Brown reinforces awareness that history is not dates and facts, that it is not neutral, and that it is an evolving effort to understand our own day and its origins. Intellectual history and analysis of historiography, together with the better comparative histories, are the source of more realistic and better understanding - a more than welcome and mature improvement over ideologues and shallow discourse prevalent today. Education in general and the study of history in particular, is no absolute assurance against stupidity of leaders and public discourse. Yet without the study of history such foolishness is common.

This is a first-rate intellectual biography of one of America's greatest thinkers. I had learned much about his thinking, his career, and his relationships in this work and came away astounded not only by Hofstadter but also by Brown.

"Intellectual biography" reminds me of the legal profession's use of the term "intellectual property" to describe trademark and patent law. The meaning is in the eye of the beholder. On the other hand, intellectual biography may be a term that has a generally accepted meaning for a certain segment of society, such as those people who write intellectual biographies. This book traces the evolution of Richard Hofstadter's analysis of historical change through his major publications, supplemented by references to his personal correspondence and interviews with former students and other persons who had personal contact with him.

Richard Hofstadter (1916-1970) was a historian, associated mainly with Columbia University in New York City. His writing began in 1942 with Social Darwinism in American Thought, 1860-1915. Four years later, he followed with The American Political Tradition: And the Men Who Made It. He was a prolific writer, applying principles of sociology and psychology to his analysis of trends in American history, much as though the entire citizenry was a single human being. The titles of some of his books demonstrate their subject matter: Age of Reform (1955); The Development of Academic Freedom in the United States (1955); The Paranoid Style of American Politics (1965); Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (1968). Hofstadter was a private man but he was drawn into the fray of American life during the radical uprisings of students in the late 1960s, including some of the students at his beloved Columbia University. Contemporaneous with those uprisings, Hofstadter's life was cut short at the age of 54-years by leukemia.

The author provides an excellent critique of Hofstadter's writing style. He was a man who not only cared about the accuracy of his work, but also he was devoted to the manner of expression. He continuously reviewed his writing, making corrections and changes right up until the time the book was in print, or - as he put it - right up to the time "working with the galleys." I wonder how many readers ever worked with galleys - or even know what they are.

Just as present day computer technology ended the use of galley proofs, intervening social and cultural events have changed many of our prevailing philosophies of government. But the book continues to apply the old labels of "liberal" and "conservative" as though the galley proofs of political activity are still the same as those used in the 1930s and 1940s. At one point, there is a reference to Hofstadter complaining that certain "liberals" were not liberals at all. Unfortunately, there was no follow up to that complaint. The reader is left with the impression that these political activists are like members of a baseball team. If they wear the liberal team's uniform today, they must be exactly the same as the members of the 1932 liberal team. It doesn't work that way.

Similarly, there seem to be a number of words that are used to signal a subject that is so far beyond dispute that it is not necessary to explain the subject. For example: "loyalty oaths," "Vietnam," "McCarthy"(sometimes "McCarthyism"). In one instance, the 1950s were swept aside with a two-word intellectual indictment, "McCarthy" and "Eisenhower." The burden of explaining the text falls on the author, not on the reader.

Nonetheless, this is an interesting book and I hope that it renews interest in the writing of Richard Hofstadter.

A very good primer on progressivism, liberalism and conservatism. Not a light read.

I have read an except of this book, and a few reviews of it including all those heretofore posted on 'Amazon'. Thus what I have is an 'impression' of the book, and not an in-depth understanding.
My impression is simply that it is a very good book. One reviewer Ronald Clark says that David S. Brown meets the challenge well of narrating both the story of the life, and the content of the books, or the intellectual development.
This seems to me the key thing in a book of this kind. I recently read an excellent detailed biography of an important intellectual figure which went into every possible aspect of the daily life without confronting the ideas and the intellectual development. It simply did not do the job.
Brown sees Hofstader as not simply a committed liberal, but as a political thinker who was able to react to the changing challenges he met throughout his life. He was an intellectual whose thought involved reacting to events, and not simply fitting them into a predisposed pattern.
He has been faulted for misunderstanding and not doing real justice to ' conservative thought'. This may well be the case. But then again his major years of working and writing were years of such great Liberal predominance that this is in some way not surprising.
Hoftstader is credited with being the most savvy and moderate of the 'New York Intellectuals' especially in regard to his relation to and support of the Democratic Party.
In telling of the life Brown tells of Hoftstader's tragic loss of his first- wife, his successful second marriage. The father of two children, a son Dan from his first marriage, and Sarah from his second he seems to have been an excellent and responsive father. His son Dan speaks highly of him and of his irrevent sense of humor, a quality not especially felt in the books.
My sense is that this is a responsible and respectable work from which one can learn much about an important American intellectual.

Richard Hofstadter obeyed the unwritten rule: tenured liberal arts academics who teach at an "elite" university should make sure they are of great value to the Democratic Party. It is wise to place one's wet finger in the air to see which way the prevailing ideological winds are blowing. Was the admittedly great scholar a raving Left-winger? Nope, the reality is that Hofstadter may have been the most conservative member of the Columbia University faculty. Alfred Kazin even referred to him as "a secret conservative." There is little doubt, it must be added, that Hofstadter would have never had such a prominent and rewarding career had he been even slightly more right-wing. I suspect had that been the case, he would have been doomed to barely earning a living at a third tier school. The famous historian was a indeed a proverbial knee jerk liberal. He admittedly was no longer a Communist, but his secular faith in "New Deal" liberalism was near dogmatic. Furthermore, communism was possibly less dangerous that anti-Communism. Hofstadter was at best an anti-anti Communist. Republicans were deemed to be paranoid and reactionary. Left-wingers may occasionally get a little goofy, but they are essentially well meaning. It is those right-wing buffoons who are supposedly crazier than jay birds and warrant intense scrutiny. Thankfully, Hofstadter's commitment to rational thinking was sufficient to reject the radical left's attempt in the 1960s to take over Columbia's campus. The enemy was not always to the right. Sometimes it does reside on the left. These leftist students were nihilists, although perhaps unwittingly so, and not true reformers. If nothing else, Hofstadter deserves credit for realizing that a nonnegotiable line had been crossed. Biographer David S. Brown hits the nail on the head: "Hofstadter's selective use of the paranoid style brings to mind David Potter's earlier criticism of the status thesis. Like status, paranoia is a slippery concept that belies strict categorization and can be used indiscriminately to pathologize political opposition." "Always looking for the enemy on the right," continues the author, "Hofstadter never suspected liberalism's vulnerability to self-destruction."

Richard Hofstadter also inadvertently harmed the American Jewish community. His unrelenting focus on anti-Semitism in some conservative circles blinded him to the far more dangerous threat posed by leftist extremism. One wonders what Hofstadter would say regarding Columbia University's current pervasive Jew bashing. David S. Brown's book is well worth reading. Conservatives should make sure to obtain a copy. It will almost certainly help them to better understand the inevitable collapse of our once great universities.

David Thomson
Flares into Darkness