Kronman takes on political correctness, constructivism, and religious fundamentalism (American grown as well as the Islamic brand), and warns us of the potential for threats to our culture and a more subtly, to civilization. While I don’t question the validity of his arguments, I do question of the relevance of some of his points. He is advocating sandbagging, but the river is already out of its banks. He argues we could contain the crest of the flood despite the flooding today. (My simple and inelegant metaphor – not his).

His history and tracing of the evolution in collegiate philosophy and development are accurate and insightful. His assesment of the vacuum in spiritual teaching and direction on America’s college campuses is on point and certain to irritate humanities professors across the nation (as well as evangelicals and a few priests). He avoided political connections that could be made,the facist nation state and Nazi Germany – but the connections are there for anyone with familiarity in German or European history. The book is topical, virile,and provoking. Humanities departments would be well served to devise a study of the book and include it in their course offerings! But make no mistake, it is more exciting than any college course book. It is worthy of your time and consumption ant any age.
Rating: 5 / 5

Kronman is an intensely literate & learned Yale law professor (who also has a philosophy degree); he’s also a political liberal (who worked for the SDS in the sixties & who currently supports Obama). This work, however, is a work of cultural conservatism.

Few will argue with Kronman’s critique of higher learning. Both cultural progressives & cultural conservatives in the humanities will concede that college & university culture has one goal in mind: to train young minds to think professionally–that is to master a set of competencies (lexical & methodological norms) that will allow them to succeed in their chosen fields. That sounds rational enough, but the problem with this is that the professionalization of the humanities has also meant the mechanization of the humanities into a set of procedural norms that are no longer spiritually nourishing.

Kronman, who has also written a book about Max Weber, argues that the university’s current predicament is the result of a long process of secularization. Kronman claims that there is a resurgent need for spirituality at the present time & that the humanities once again need to provide not just professional but spiritual guidance.

Kronman is not suggesting a return to any specific religion, what he is suggesting is a return to basic questions & concerns ( ie what is the meaning of life ?, what is the best way to live?) that he (somewhat arbitrarily) calls “spiritual” into the matrix of higher learning. This is his suggested cure not just for what ails higher learning, but for what ails humanity.

A return to basic questions & concerns sounds like a fine idea, but Kronman opens himself up to a number of problems when he equates globalization with westernization & a return to basic questions with a return to the canonical texts of western civilization (Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Mill). Kronman is not exactly dismissive of multiculturalism for he believes that students should learn about other cultures, but he believes that ones primary loyalty should be to one’s home culture. In other words, Kronman believes that students will not find fulfillment in “superficial multiculturalism” but by immersing themselves in strictly western ways of being/knowing/valuing/believing.

Kronman obviously means well, but he simply doesn’t account for the fact that the modern classroom is full of students & teachers with roots in many different cultures & traditions. To be fair to Kronman, he does respect other cultures & traditions, and he thinks that we need to learn about them, but what he fails to acknowledge is the possibility that we may learn something from them as well. As smart as he is, Kronman’s anglocentric bias prevents him from seeing the world (or the classroom) as it is: a multicultural contact zone. And he fails to see that contact with cultures & histories & traditions other than western ones does not entail a loss to the existing tradition but an addition to it.

I think Kronman, and those cultural conservatives like him, believe that their way of life, the western way of life, is threatened by multiculturalism & globalization. So Kronman reacts by writing a book that suggests we institutionally defend the west against encroachments from the nonwestern world. But the best of what has been thought in the west is not in any danger when we amend or compare & contrast those thoughts with the best that has been thought outside of the west. In fact, studying other traditions simply adds to the number of ways we can ask & answer the basic questions that concern all of humanity (and not just that portion of it that we call western).

The best possible future will be fashioned not by those who formulate east/west or west/other relations as a contest for superiority between separate worlds, but by those who have the imagination to build upon the best of what has been thought regardless of that thoughts national or hemispheric origin.

Many cultural progressives & conservatives agree that the idea of the university is in trouble. Kronman’s book is valuable for diagnosing what ails the modern university and the modern world, but his prescription is overly conservative, short-sighted, and does not engage the imagination in the way that a much more comprehensive and much more far-sighted (and much less anglocentric) set of higher learning reforms would.

Editorial:

I think the idea of a return to basic questions & concerns is a good idea, but I think that the problem with education today is even more basic than that. Kronman is a lawyer & an academic who is enlivened by argument & thus he no doubt enjoyed producing this text which is an intervention into a lively debate with a long history. The problem with Kronman is that he assumes that others will be enlivened by the same things that enliven him. The problem with academia is that too many academics assume that what interests them will & should interest 18-22 year olds. Very few academics really make an attempt to understand what interests & enlivens young people & why, and so many well-intentioned academics fail to recognize that the classroom is a stifling place for many creative-minded students who are not spiritually enlivened nor fulfilled by this or that academic’s version of educational life. I’m guessing that a concentration on western texts will alienate more students than it will assist or spiritually nourish. I think I am safe in saying that most students who read Kant do not find themselves to be having anything like a religious experience while doing so. What makes most people feel spiritually enlivened, I’m guessing, are things like love & hope & possibility, and not Plato & Kant & Mill.

Academics will better serve their students when they better understand student needs. And the quickest way to do this is to pay attention to what they spend their time doing: constructing & editing their MySpace & Facebook pages. MySpace or Facebook might seem like a foreign & irrelevant universe to academics but if they take the time to understand why these sites are so appealing to students they might better understand their students. MySpace & Facebook allow students a rare opportunity to express themselves; and to connect with distant and not so distant others; and they provide a unique way for students to produce & manage their private & social selves & worlds. If academics understood this then they might find better ways to understand & connect with students and, more generally, understand how contemporary individuals cope with contemporary realities. Discussions of common fears, hopes, & desires as well as discussions of contemporary ways of expressing & coping with common fears, hopes, & desires might prove more interesting & useful & satisfying than a seminar on The Republic, Critique of Pure Reason, or On Liberty (though these texts, of course, have their place as well). But if the university truly concentrated on basic real-world questions & how real people answered them then a university would cease to be a place that accredited people according to professional ability and instead a place that accredited people according to their value to each other and their community. And that, sadly, isn’t a reality. The reality is that real life & real people simply do not get the respect that Plato & Kant & Mill do and that is why professors value & teach Plato & Kant & Mill and that students share not their own selves & thoughts but their critique of the great thinkers (whose realities & concerns may or may not coincide with their own). This overvaluing & overpraising classic texts & undervaluing & underpraising self can be dehumanizing. Status at the university level is conferred upon those who publish books & not upon those individuals who connect with students. The university used to attract an attractive type: the gentleman scholar with one foot in the library & one foot in the street. Nowadays most professors are seasoned professionals more attuned to the realities of their profession (which means the realities of publishing) than the realities of living & functioning in the world that most of us live & function in. To rehaul the university and make it a more inviting & enriching place to spend four or more years will take more than a return to basic questions, it will take a reconsideration of what it is we truly value about the humanities, how best to teach them, and what kind of people are best suited to take on this invaluable role.

Rating: 3 / 5