In reading David Brooks’ recent opinion piece in the New York Times “How to Save a Sad, Lonely, Angry and Mean Society“ my initial reaction was that this is a seemingly naïvely optimistic opinion expressed by a man who I consider to be extremely erudite and insightful. Upon further reflection and a glass of wine I am more inclined to consider his remarks as aspirational rather than merely prescriptive.
On my recent trip to Milan for the purpose of going to La Scala to see the opera Macbeth, I was fortunate to share a box with a woman from Russia, who now lived in Italy. We engaged in lively conversation about many things from the star of the opera Anna Netrebko who had been fired from the Metropolitan Opera for not condemning Putin over the war, to how we felt about attempts to modernize operas (we both were critical of it). It was a good conversation that I felt privileged to have. She as an expat Russian and myself as an African-American coming from two different places yet engaging in a good cultural exchange. Nonetheless, I am also cognizant of the place and circumstances which enabled us to have that type of conversation and the fact that both of us might have been pre-disposed to this type of encounter.
David Brooks is right that culture and the exchange of ideas with people different than ourselves allows us to expand our minds and horizons. The American Palestinian academic Edward Said stated “The more one is able to leave one’s cultural home, the more easily is one able to judge it, and the whole world as well, with the spiritual detachment and generosity necessary for true vision.” Like Schopenhauer I believe that art and philosophy can be a mitigating factor against the sufferings of life but as previously stated perhaps that mindset may only apply to those who are already predisposed to it.
One of the omissions from his article is the fact that it is culture which is at the center of some of the present political and social divisions in the nation. Unfortunately, the culture war has been used by political hopefuls as a tool to garner personal political power. In essence however, Mr. Brooks’ antidote perhaps rightfully so is “the hair of the dog that bit you.”
I would like to believe that increased cultural encounters can serve as an antidote for what ails the nation and lead to people both individually and collectively becoming better. It is quite romantic to think that by encountering culture through the works of a wide range of people from Rembrandt, Frida Kahlo, Beethoven’s Ode To Joy, the compositions of William Still to the writings of Kant can transform a nation’s outlook and free it from the adversarial gloom that it seems to be in the grips of. These cultural encounters can give us a glimpse of the world that makes it more compelling. I would welcome the idea of more people engaging Picasso’s Guernica as a starting point for discussions about the horrors of war. Culture should be a major part of the educational curriculum and our civic life as a way to broaden the horizon of students and the public in general. Nonetheless, I am reminded that someone that David Brooks admired namely William F. Buckley Jr. who as cultured and erudite as he was also wrote, “Why the South Must Prevail” which arguably reaches the same conclusion about white supremacy as someone as uncultured and ill-educated as the late actor Walter Brennan who expressed joy about the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. I’m not so sure that a large segment of the population believed Mr. Buckley’s cultural encounters made him better.
Where I disagree with Mr. Brooks is his belief that culture is more important than politics. The reality is that they go hand in hand. While Mr. Brooks names people such as Alice Walker, Zora Neale and James Baldwin it is only because of political struggles that they are now included in the historical and cultural lexicon of the United States. It is because of politics that the cultural landscape is more diverse and reflective of the general population. Even now however many who add value to the cultural inventory of the United States are being removed from the reservoir through a version of bonfire of the vanities by a segment of the population who believe their culture is being impeded upon. Culture can and has served to maintain a certain way of thinking about the world. Even from a religious perspective there is a reason why the image of Jesus created by Warner Sallman is the most accepted image of the messiah in the world today. We must recognize that from the days of the Medicis’ to the financiers of today what is accepted as culture is more times than not due to the sensitivity, social and political whims, of financial patrons who often were guided by more than enlightened self-interest.
Perhaps Mr. Brooks dismissal of politics is more indicative of his position in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs which has rendered politics a non-essential need for him beyond editorializing. He is not affected by the overturning of Roe, the gutting of the 1965 Voting Rights bill nor by some who want to overturn the rights of the LGBTQ community.
The history of the United States is replete with seemingly cultured and lettered people who nonetheless were not transformed in their thinking but rather doubled down in their belief about a social hierarchical system. It’s a scary thought to think that some of them particularly in the south thought the founders made an error with the notion that “all men are created equal” and wanted to change the wording to reflect the supremacy of an elite community of white male Americans. Even at the highest levels of power author Heather Richardson Cox reminds us in her book “Democracy Awakening” of the words of President Franklin Pierce who “claimed the Founders had intended the United States to be a white man’s republic in which “free white men” ruled over “the subject races . . . Indian and African.”
The problem is that cultural sentiments rarely stay in the confines of conversation and intellectual discernment. We see in many states today a movement to restrict what is available to students in the classroom.
While Mr. Brooks is right in that college professors in general should not be race, class and gender activists although arguably one of the complaints of William Buckley in his book “God and Man at Yale” was that the university was not an activist when it came to belief in the Christian God. One would also have to pre-suppose that Mr. Brooks would not advocate an objective discussion void of judgement on the philosophy and policies of Adolf Hitler (who adored cultural icon Richard Wagner), Mussolini, or Pol Pot.
I accept the notion of culture as a potentially transformative act and I appreciate his prescription of it for the present social malady which seems to be affecting America. Engaging with the great minds and artists of the past can make us more compassionate, enlightened and yes perhaps better individuals. Unfortunately his aspirational approach to the nation exists in the theoretical world of assumptions. In the real world however there is a war going on where the prize and the victim is culture.
Like Mr. Brooks I too visit recently visited the Museum of Modern Art to view the Picasso in Fountainebleau exhibit. The dearth of diversity amongst the crowds wasn’t surprising yet was quite noticeable to me although I must admit the number of young people present was quite impressive. Perhaps it was the time of day or perhaps Mr. Brooks initial point about waning interest is correct. It could also be that what Mr. Brooks would consider as acceptable culture has been rejected by a generation that interprets the accepted culturally masters with exceptions as symbols of an oppressive society. Whatever the reason may be I am not convinced that a sudden vast increase of interest in culture and cultural institutions would make a major difference in today’s body politic.
Nonetheless, Mr. Brooks’ aspiration may be worth the effort providing that a mediating institution is utilized to prevent and stem the tide against cultural nationalism and censorship and create the space where his vision could possibly flourish to the benefit of all.