Left and Right Eclecticism: Roger Kimball's Cultural Criticism.

• Author: Bengtsson, Jan Olof

Roger Kimball, managing editor of The New Criterion, has recently received extraordinary praise in America. He has been hailed by Irving Kristol as 'among our most intelligent, thoughtful, and provocative cultural critics', and by Frederick Morgan as 'one of the ablest and most philosophically skilled critics on the current scene'. According to John Simon, Kimball is 'uniquely qualified to deal with literary and philosophical matters alike'. William J. Bennett, William F. Buckley, Harvey Mansfield, John Ellis, and the late Allan Bloom are among the many who have lauded Kimball's books. (1)

In 1996 Claes G. Ryn questioned the quality and the philosophical depth of American conservatives' concern for culture in his article 'How the Conservatives Failed "The Culture"'. (2) In his view, an unhistorical, abstract way of thinking, inspired mainly by Leo Strauss, had eclipsed the older 'cultural conservatism' of writers like Russell Kirk and Peter Viereck, which in turn had deep affinities with the earlier tradition of cultural criticism represented by Irving Babbitt and the New Humanism. Ryn often has argued that the ahistorical rationalism of much American conservative thought should be corrected by the simultaneously Burkean and classicist humanism of Babbitt, supplemented by the historicist and epistemological insights of modern idealism, especially as represented by Benedetto Croce. Kimball, along with Buckley, Bennett, Kristol, Bloom, et al., clearly has his roots in the form of American conservatism criticised by Ryn. The nature of the praise for Kimball, as an eminent example precisely of a cu ltural critic with philosophical qualifications therefore calls for a closer look at his work.

Eclecticism Revisited

Kimball's Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education, first published in 1990 by Harper Collins, is one of the best known of the many critiques of the predicament of American higher education in the grip of what Kimball, with a term borrowed from Frederick Crews, calls 'left eclecticism': 'not identical to Marxism, exactly', but representing 'any of a wide variety of anti-establishment modes of thought'. In the new, thoroughly revised edition, (3) Kimball follows the development through the nineties, adding new trends to the eclectic whole. Along with neo-neo-Marxism, it now comprises structuralism, poststructuralism, Lacanian analysis, deconstruction, women's studies, black studies, gay studies, queer theory, critical legal studies, new historicism, cultural studies, and Afrocentrism (and the list is not exhaustive): Kimball himself is not tenured; he analyses the attitude of the new academic establishment which, in the name of a new professionalism formed in accordance with the canon of left eclecticism, looks down upon 'free' intellectuals like himself. Formerly, persons with Kimball's views could also be part of the professoriate; now, Kimball thinks, they are increasingly marginalised and not even accepted as independent writers. Many readers, Kimball recounts, protested against the dark picture he presented and wondered if the situation was really as bad as he depicted. In the new edition, he answers that it is even worse. But it might be more accurate to say that the situation is indeed as bad as Kimball reports, as far as he does report it, but that he does not tell the whole story: there are still many professors with academic integrity who do not run with the pack.

The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America, (4) and Experiments Against Reality: The Fate of Culture in the Postmodern Age, (5) are collections of articles previously published in The New Criterion. Together, they provide a progressive deepening and broadening of the analysis initiated in Tenured Radicals. The Long March looks partly beyond the academy to the general culture of the sixties, following the counterculture from the emergence of the 'Beats' in the fifties and through the sixties, and often rounds off with a look at the fates of the leading figures in the last decades of the twentieth century. Allen Ginsberg, William S. Burroughs, Jack Kerouac, Norman Mailer, Herbert Marcuse, Wilhelm Reich, Norman O. Brown, Susan Sontag, Timothy Leary, Eldridge Cleaver, Charles Reich, and Paul Goodman come in for close scrutiny. Kimball here also attempts a deeper historical and philosophical analysis of the nature of cultural revolutions and of the underlying worldview of hippiedom a nd student radicalism. Experiments Against Reality looks beyond America and explores even deeper strata of modern culture. The theme indicated in the title, even when further specified as the separation of postmodern culture from high modernism as well as from traditional humanism, and as a critique of the former, is broad, yet some chapters still seem tangential to it. In the first part Kimball gauges the merits and the stature in contemporary criticism of figures whose work to some extent challenges or constitutes an alternative to the drift of Western culture towards postmodernism as well as to left eclecticism and the cultural revolution. Among them are T. E. Hulme, T. S. Eliot, Wallace Stevens, W. H. Auden, and Robert Musil. (6) None of the leading figures analysed in The Long March is today acknowledged as a thinker of the first rank; most are even forgotten. The same may perhaps soon be true also of the professors dominating the pages of Tenured Radicals. But in the second part of Experiments Against Reality, Kimball tackles twentieth- (and some nineteenth-) century thinkers and writers who are still widely recognised as truly important or whose works are still firmly established at the centre of academic and cultural debate: J. S. Mill, Nietzsche, Sartre, Foucault, Cioran. As with the figures in The Long March, Kimball focuses not only on the sordid and sometimes nefarious aspects of their works but also of their lives.

During the same period as when these three books were being released, Kimball also coedited with Hilton Kramer, editor-in-chief of The New Criterion, no less than three collections of essays from that journal: The Future of the European Past (1997), The Betrayal of Liberalism: How the Disciples of Freedom and Equality Helped Foster the Illiberal Politics of Coercion and Control (1999), and Against the Grain: The New Criterion on Art and Intellect at the End of the Twentieth Century (2000). The substance of 'left eclecticism' is analysed at length in all of these books.

It is a common practice routinely to revile the phenomenon of eclecticism as symptomatic of a lack of originality, dependence on the work of others, a deficient sense of logical coherence and critical discrimination, and often simply bad taste. Yet it is an open question whether the word should not be viewed as having two different meanings: eclecticism in a 'productive' as well as in the usual 'unproductive' sense. In the 'productive' sense, it could stand for thinking which, though not wholly original and composed of elements collected from many different sources, nevertheless combines these elements in a way that is not merely mechanical but which makes sense as a meaningful and consistent whole. For instance, by drawing on many historical layers and various strands in one or more cultural traditions, a traditionally minded thinker may discover, extract, collect, and piece together an essentially coherent wisdom of the ages, and thus perform a valuable task of transmission, preservation, renewal, and expli cation without adding anything substantially new or any dramatic reinterpretation of his own. This was the aspiration of both Solomon and Cicero. Eclecticism of this traditionalist variety may imply lack of originality, and it certainly implies dependence on the work of others, but at least the etymological meaning of the term (7) allows for its use as a designation of practices that do not exclude logical coherence, critical discernment, and good taste.

I believe the left eclecticism analysed by Kimball can be said to be another instance of ecleticism in the 'productive' sense. Good taste may not always be evident, it must be admitted, but on Kimball's own showing, left eclecticism at least displays a fair amount of consistency and unity of purpose. If this is not immediately evident, a historical perspective must be introduced.

The Problem of Historical Explanation

Kimball is too modest with regard to historical explanation, partly, it seems, because he has an insufficient conception of what it entails. Why do cultural revolutions, such as that of the sixties, happen? Since The Long March consists of previously published essays, Kimball can, in the later essays, reply to criticism against the earlier ones. Mark Lilla held that for Kimball "'the cause of the Sixties was quite simply ... the Sixties. They just happened, as a kind of miracle, or antimiracle--Why ... did such a profound revolution take place in America when it did? Let us call this the Tocqueville question"'. In my opinion, Kimball's reply is not entirely satisfactory. Part of the answer, Kimball writes, is 'what we may call the "Tocqueville answer"': Tocqueville wrote that "'When great revolutions are successful... their causes cease to exist, and the very fact of their success has made them incomprehensible". All manner of sociological, technological, and demographic phenomena have been adduced to "explai n" the rise of the counterculture', but

the truth is, as Irving Kristol observed, "the counterculture was not 'caused', it was born. What happened was internal to our culture and society, not external to it."--Accordingly, the real task for a cultural critic is not etiological--there are a never-ending series of incomplete answers to the question "Why?"--but diagnostic and, ultimately. therapeutic (8)

Although it is hardly evident why something that is internal to our culture can not be a cause of one of its developments, the...