Friday, January 21, 2005
An Evening in D.C.
A few days ago I had the pleasure of attending a discussion on Tom Wolfe’s latest opus “I Am Charlotte Simmons.” The Independent Women’s Forum sponsored the event which was titled “Who’s Afraid of Tom Wolfe?” Two distinct views on the book were explicated. While I had to duck out early due to a prior commitment, it was well worth attending.
After the customary introductions there were 4 speakers, of which I heard the first three. David Brooks of the New York Times went first. Probably our most famous living pop sociologist, he had a positive view of the book with the exception of the books one glaring omission. He described it as very well written and unfairly treated. But he also stated that it missed the fact that the modern ivy-league student lived a highly regimented life. They race through each day passing through all the appropriate checkpoints, in order to run the next race and pass through all the appropriate checkpoints in Corporate America. Christina Hoff Sommers of the American Enterprise Institute said much the same thing with statistics. She referenced a multitude of sociological studies that demonstrate that today’s college student is less promiscuous, less drunken, and more goal oriented that his predecessors.
The National Review’s John Derbyshire (pronounced Dar-byshire) took a different tact. Derb is the curmudgeon of the Right, Russell Kirk with a hangover. He didn’t fail to elicit a few chuckles and a few awkward moments. A mathematician by training he was more interested in the relationship between modern science and man’s view of himself. Wolfe really dug into this theme in both the classroom scenes in “I Am Charlotte Simmons” and in his collection of essays “Hooking Up.” Derb made an interesting ontological point using homosexuality as an example. Homosexuality was once considered an action, something someone does, now it is a state of being, something someone is. Obviously Derb chooses an example that causes an anxious reaction. But the question is how can a person be held responsible for something that is embedded in his nature, if he cannot choose to be different? And how if this choosing is impossible can anyone choose to be good?
While I cannot do justice to the entire evening in this space, allow me to make a few comments. Sommers and Brooks miss the mark. Brooks has got to realize that he is talking about a sub-species of the college student much like Wolfe does in his book. Except Wolfe writes about multiple sub-species that inhabit the college universe, and Brooks speaks of one. Brooks sees diligent driven decent Americans in the classroom, indeed Brooks looks at the classroom battlefields and lo and behold the enemy is himself. As like is attracted to like, he misses the broader picture that Wolfe describes.
Sommers went empirical The average college student will be very ignorant of college life as it was lived even two years before he arrives on campus. The trend that she sees in the numbers while possibly true may not tell us how the student sees himself. If a college student is having less sex now than in 1990 that may not mean that his self-image is any less tied to his ability to bed co-eds. Where Wolfe’s aim is true is defining the idea of masculinity in the life of young Americans. To be fair Sommers threw out a large amount of information that should be given a more serious treatment than I am giving it here.
Derb makes an unoriginal point, but a very important one. In the light of modern science how can we see a moral framework for human life? Defining these issues in this context will always lead us back to Nietzsche. But Nietzche looked into the abyss of nihilism and went mad. The lesson would seem to be that we should find another path. But events are forcing us in this direction.
This discussion did nothing to take away from Wolfe’s book. And as you can see the discussion ranged quite far. This is evidence of Wolfe’s greatness as a writer. He does not answer questions he forces us to ask them.
After the customary introductions there were 4 speakers, of which I heard the first three. David Brooks of the New York Times went first. Probably our most famous living pop sociologist, he had a positive view of the book with the exception of the books one glaring omission. He described it as very well written and unfairly treated. But he also stated that it missed the fact that the modern ivy-league student lived a highly regimented life. They race through each day passing through all the appropriate checkpoints, in order to run the next race and pass through all the appropriate checkpoints in Corporate America. Christina Hoff Sommers of the American Enterprise Institute said much the same thing with statistics. She referenced a multitude of sociological studies that demonstrate that today’s college student is less promiscuous, less drunken, and more goal oriented that his predecessors.
The National Review’s John Derbyshire (pronounced Dar-byshire) took a different tact. Derb is the curmudgeon of the Right, Russell Kirk with a hangover. He didn’t fail to elicit a few chuckles and a few awkward moments. A mathematician by training he was more interested in the relationship between modern science and man’s view of himself. Wolfe really dug into this theme in both the classroom scenes in “I Am Charlotte Simmons” and in his collection of essays “Hooking Up.” Derb made an interesting ontological point using homosexuality as an example. Homosexuality was once considered an action, something someone does, now it is a state of being, something someone is. Obviously Derb chooses an example that causes an anxious reaction. But the question is how can a person be held responsible for something that is embedded in his nature, if he cannot choose to be different? And how if this choosing is impossible can anyone choose to be good?
While I cannot do justice to the entire evening in this space, allow me to make a few comments. Sommers and Brooks miss the mark. Brooks has got to realize that he is talking about a sub-species of the college student much like Wolfe does in his book. Except Wolfe writes about multiple sub-species that inhabit the college universe, and Brooks speaks of one. Brooks sees diligent driven decent Americans in the classroom, indeed Brooks looks at the classroom battlefields and lo and behold the enemy is himself. As like is attracted to like, he misses the broader picture that Wolfe describes.
Sommers went empirical The average college student will be very ignorant of college life as it was lived even two years before he arrives on campus. The trend that she sees in the numbers while possibly true may not tell us how the student sees himself. If a college student is having less sex now than in 1990 that may not mean that his self-image is any less tied to his ability to bed co-eds. Where Wolfe’s aim is true is defining the idea of masculinity in the life of young Americans. To be fair Sommers threw out a large amount of information that should be given a more serious treatment than I am giving it here.
Derb makes an unoriginal point, but a very important one. In the light of modern science how can we see a moral framework for human life? Defining these issues in this context will always lead us back to Nietzsche. But Nietzche looked into the abyss of nihilism and went mad. The lesson would seem to be that we should find another path. But events are forcing us in this direction.
This discussion did nothing to take away from Wolfe’s book. And as you can see the discussion ranged quite far. This is evidence of Wolfe’s greatness as a writer. He does not answer questions he forces us to ask them.
