Bauerlein begins the final chapter by recounting the story of Rip Van Winkle and stresses the importance of the specific time period (1776-17960) covered in the tale. This appears to be his way of directing our attention to the importance of civic minded people in the development of our nation. He refers to Jefferson and his view of the import of our "need to read" (p. 211). He explains the role of journalists, the ignorance of voters and states that tradition acts as a yardstick (p. 215). He comments that at some point in our maturity, we move beyond the individual and and begin thinking in terms of community duty, and it would seem, we fail miserably.
Our author emphasizes that knowledgable antagonists elevate thinking levels and, in general, society (p.218) and puts context to our lives and accomplishments. He then moves on to tear down several civic groups stating, in essence, that they are shallow in their content and are not "sufficiently prepared or interested in pursuing the cultural, ideological warfare" (p. 223). He states that the Establishment of the sixties and seventies fell "to the Adolescent horde" (p.223).
Bauerlein believes that those few who do attempt the task of warring for the benefit of all, are "limited by having no youthworld of ideas and arguments" (p.224). He speaks of pockets of intellectuals who are unable to match the depth and quality of those who came before.
John Erskine is quoted as saying that people have "the moral obligation to be intelligent" and Bauerlein proposes that knowledge is as basic as individual rights (p. 232-3). Ultimately, he ends the book with his call to set the bar higher (for adulthood) or the habits of the under-30's will cuse them to "be recalled as the generation that lost that great American heritage, forever" (p. 236).
When Bauerlein began the chapter with references to the story of Rip Van Winkle I was really wondering where he was headed. He soon led into a discussion of the importance of knowledge in a democratic republic. People need to think for themselves without institutions counseling them (p. 211). “A healthy democracy needs a vigilant citizenry, and a healthy vigilant citizenry needs a reservoir of knowledge” (p. 215). This brought him back to his negative comments about today’s youth. They don’t read enough, study enough, care enough, ponder enough ideas, have a good enough vocabulary, or derive enough lessons from history ( p. 223). Bauerlein feels there are too few youth that will be able to carry on and lead our country. Their intellectual life cannot compete with their social life (p. 234). “The Dumbest Generation will cease being dumb only when it regards adolescence as an inferior realm of petty strivings and adulthood as a realm of civic, historical, and cultural awareness that puts them in touch with the perennial ideas and struggles” (p.236).
ReplyDeleteOnce again, I felt overwhelmed when I read this chapter. Not this time because of numbers and statistics however, but because of the numerous references Bauerlein makes to obscure intellectuals and literary works. I did find myself agreeing with his statement on page 222 though. In fact my husband and I discussed it at great length last night as we watched modern day politicians battle it out on CNN. On page 222, Bauerlein has this to say:
ReplyDelete"The example of Martin Luther King's diginified and unwavering nonviolence chastises social protest whenever it descends into vitrol and intolerance. The reluctant public service of George Washington, who filled the presidency for his country and not for private reward, embarasses greedy politicians who use government as a stepping-stone to wealth."
What a contrast these two men are to what we see on the nightly news today. Bauerlein really hit home for me with his statement. It is important as he says, that we know and understand our past so that we can put today's issues in perspective and context. I don't think however that you have to have read Karl Marx or Jack Kerouac to be an informed and civic minded individual.
For once I feel like playing the "devil's advocate." I find this to be the most enjoyable chapter of the book. I often stress to my students, especially while teaching American and British literature, that although this is English class and not history class, they do need to be aware of the social, political, and historical issues of the time period in which the work was written or they will not understand the context of the work. My students, however, do not agree. Why would this be any different for us? I am a firm believer that if you want to argue against a political or religious movement, then you better be an expert not only on the side you support but on the other side as well, and that seemed to be where Bauerlein was going. When he was discussing the political groups on campus in the 1930's, he claimed that what separated them from today's youthful political groups is the fact that in the 30's the groups had someone to argue against and they had read and studied both sides of the playing field. Today, students surround themselves with information that supports their world views, but they do not seek information that contradicts what they believe. In my opinion, this ties in nicely with Bauerlein's argument in chapter five about the self-absorbed attitude of today's youth. This attitude could essentially become problematic. It is difficult to advocate working together for the common good when the individuals are only concerned with themselves.
ReplyDeleteI finally related to something Bauerlein had to say. He states that "the Dumbest Generation will cease being dumb only when it regards adolescence as an inferior realm of petty strivings and adulthood as a realm of civic, historical, and cultural awareness that puts them in touch with the perennial ideas and struggles." (p. 236) I completely agree that democracy as a whole could be lost if we don't pass on the knowledge of where we came from and why we are where we are today. We have freedoms and liberties, and civil rights because of history and the framers of our Constitution, and of course civil rights leaders along the way. If we lose sight of all these important and pivitol events we "may even be recalled as the generation that lost that great American heritage, forever." (p. 236)
ReplyDeleteThis section, the last of the book, tied Bauerlein's theme together. At the begining of the section he wrote about Rip Van Winkle and highlights a key portion of the story, the time period in which it takes place. Bauerlein talks about Rip, what he missed during the 20 years that he was asleep and how he represents the past. He wrote on p 210 that Rip doesn't care about what has happened in history and politics. Rip's role is, "a pre-citizen who assumes none of the political duties of the present, but who reminds the others of a contrasting past."
ReplyDeleteBauerlein uses the story of Rip Van Winkle to illustrate the importance of connection between knowledge and democracy.
I think that the author is comparing young Americans to Rip saying that both of them lack the background knowledge necessary to make them informed citizens and that neither of them has the desire to become informed. It does seem that many Americans are missing some of the shared knowledge that helped make Americans what they were in the past.