This is one of Roger Kimball's best books because the enormities of the subject draw out his best analytical, critical and rhetorical skills. The overarching theme is that the 60's (broadly conceived; they began in the 50's and continued into the 70's) won; i.e., the cultural program of the political radicals succeeded and is now so 'with us' that we take it for granted. It is not an alternative reality; it is the status quo. We take for granted the omnipresence of pornography, the commonality of broken families, the dilution of our systems of education, their tendency to indoctrinate rather than teach, and the centrality of crudeness and sex in our popular 'entertainments'.
Some approach this subject differently. Todd Gitlin, for example, sees the 60's as bifurcated. On the one hand there are the struggles for liberation that characterize the efforts on behalf of the Vietnamese, struggles which are aligned with the civil rights movement, the women's movement and, eventually, the LGBTQ movement. On the other hand there is the attempt by student radicals to validate their desire for sex, drugs and rock and roll. Liberation is benign, self-indulgence is selfish, narcissistic and the cause of many of our current problems.
RK tends to see all of the activities of the 60's radicals as of a piece, since they are intellectually and morally perverse at the core; they are founded on hopelessly-naïve utopian schemes, narcissistic self-regard, a need for political posturing and a loathing for bourgeois culture by individuals who are the products of bourgeois culture and who remained dependent on bourgeois culture.
RK's method is to look at common themes in certain chapters and common texts and false prophets/prophetesses in others. Among those singled out for special treatment are the Beats, Norman Mailer, Susan Sontag, Charles Reich, Eldridge Cleaver, Paul Goodman, Herbert Marcuse, et al. Their work is opposed by RK's team: Leszek Kolakowski, Irving Kristol, Roger Scruton, et al.
One of the points that he is at pains to make is the notion that the iconic texts of the 60's are, in retrospect, embarrassing. They are poorly written, poorly argued and, in many cases, simply preposterous. How could anyone be influenced by such stuff? How could anyone take it seriously? The answer lies in the predispositions predating the pronouncements. Those who want to believe or do certain things will welcome false prophets and the texts that grant them permission or offer them encouragement.
For those of us who lived through these times the most painful passages will be those in which the college presidents and faculties fell at the feet of the radical students who assaulted them. 'Betrayal of the intellectuals' does not begin to describe the actions that resulted in lasting damage to our institutions of higher education. We expect students to demand things that are not in their best interest; what we do not expect is the abasement of adults when confronted by non-negotiable demands.
Bottom line: this is not a pretty picture. It is a tragic one and it continues to haunt us. RK pulls no punches in depicting it. Those who agree with the 60's' program will consider the book to be reactionary. Those of a conservative or, better, traditionalist, bent will ask how one can consider the continuing valorization of destructive behavior to be defensible.
- Paperback: 326 pages
- Publisher: Encounter Books; First PB Edition, First Printing edition (June 1, 2001)
- Language: English
- ISBN-10: 1893554309
- ISBN-13: 978-1893554306
- Product Dimensions: 5.5 x 0.8 x 8.2 inches
- Shipping Weight: 14.4 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
- Customer Reviews: 55 customer reviews
-
Amazon Best Sellers Rank:
#147,332 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #802 in Popular Culture in Social Sciences
- #358 in American Literature Criticism
Would you like to tell us about a lower price?
If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support?
If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support?
