Friday, December 12, 2008
Superfluous (Chapter 3)
The art of aristocrats, the art of enriching life.
- Mary M. Colum
From the book:
Another reason why good literature was more readily accessible [in Nock’s youth] than now is that the proportion of literacy in our population was much lower, and publishers were not under such heavy economic pressure to block up the access to good literature with trash. In Massachusetts, where literacy would be presumably highest, there were nearly a hundred thousand persons unable to read or write. Things were no better in Connecticut, where one-tenth of the child-population got no schooling at all; and it would be fair to suppose that in the more newly-settled regions of the country the level of literacy would be very considerably lower. One might assume that as the level of literacy rose, the level of general intelligence would rise with it, and consequently that the economic demand for good literature would also rise. This, roughly, was Mr. Jefferson’s idea, and indeed it has always been at the root of our system of free public instruction for everyone. It has, however, somehow failed to work out according to expectation. The level of literacy has been pushed up very nearly to the practicable limit, but the level of general intelligence seems not to have risen appreciably, and the economic demand for good literature is apparently no greater in relation to a population of a hundred and thirty million than it was to one that was going on sixty million; in fact, one would say it is much less. The reason for this is plain enough; there is nothing recondite about it. In his view of literacy, Mr. Jefferson, was only half right. He was obviously right in premising that no illiterate person can read; but he was guilty of a thundering non distributio medii in his tacit conclusion that any literate person can read. On the contrary, as I discovered as long ago as my undergraduate days, very few literate persons are able to read, very few indeed. This can be proven by observation and experiment of the simplest kind. I do not mean that the great majority are unable to read intelligently; I mean that they are unable to read at all – unable, that is, to carry away from a piece of printed matter anything like a correct idea of its content. They are more or less adept at passing printed matter through their minds, after a fashion, especially such matter as is addressed to mere sensation, (and knowledge of this fact is nine-tenths of a propagandist’s equipment), but this is not reading. Reading implies the use of the reflective faculty, and very few have that faculty developed much beyond the anthropoid stage, let alone processing it at a stage of development which makes reading practicable.
This is a long excerpt, but I feel it is important to quote to whole thing to get a good grasp of what Nock is saying. There are quite a few times in Nock’s writings where he uses a very familiar word in a rather unconventional way. In this case, “reading” and “literacy” are words that he uses in his own way, and then makes his definition more explicit later on.
Universal literacy has been held up as a baseline goal for a civilized society for a couple hundred years. We’ve pretty much reached that goal now, with the exception of a few people that fall through the cracks, and a few other people that are physically or mentally handicapped.
Nock is the first person I’ve ever seen to stop and ask – why is universal literacy assumed to be a good thing, and do the experimental results bear out the presuppositions?
The simple act of asking this question proves that Nock is approaching the issue from an entirely different point of view than what we do today. Even though many of us reject progressive political theory, we are unaware exactly how much progressive sociological thought we have absorbed and take for granted. In my case, at least, this is one of those situations.
Progressive sociological thought puts forth the notion that all men are improvable, and that society, through public or private educational systems, should have a hand in improving them. Being literate is a prerequisite to having the ability to learn other things and to be educated, so universal literacy should be a primary goal of any society.
Nock’s contention is that the ability to read has no bearing whatsoever on the ability to think, and that without the ability to think, the ability to read is at best pointless and at worst detrimental to individuals. Also implicit in his statements is that the ability to think is not something of which all men are capable. Expecting everyone to be improvable to the point of being truly literate, sentient beings is folly.
This idea was initially hard for me to accept, given that I know quite a few literate, intelligent people. However, with time I began to realize that Nock is holding people to a higher standard. Being “smart” today means one has gone to school, one has a degree in some impressive field or another, etc. I think about all of the people I know that get classified as “smart”, and start to look at them from Nock’s perspective. How many have an interest in thinking, as opposed to simply memorizing things and applying algorithms? This I think is commonly substituted for intelligence today. One person’s knowledge base of field-specific trivia is larger than another’s, so that person is defined to be “smarter”. The ability to critically analyze that information and draw true, useful conclusions from it is largely ignored. By Nock’s criteria, I know very few literate, intelligent people. I also come away from this exercise fully agreeing with him that the majority of people are incapable of or uninterested in this sort of thought.
Nock’s examples of the downsides of universal literacy are the increasing rarity of good literature as publishing houses begin to cater to the tastes of the masses, increased advertisements everywhere as companies begin to use a new form of communication to influence the weak-minded, and an increased danger from propagandists who see a similar opportunity to that of advertisers.
I did a quick check to see how far this trend as come. City Journal has a circulation of about 10,000 issues, quarterly. National Review’s circulation is about 150,000 issues, bi-weekly. Cosmopolitan has a circulation of about 3,000,000 issues, monthly. Maxim has a circulation of about 2,500,000 issues, monthly. That’s right, two percent of the entire population of the country reads either Cosmo or Maxim every month. City Journal readers are barely a blip on the radar.
This is what universal literacy has brought us. Billboards along highways, an audience for the Huffington Post, and “What men think about SEX” in grocery store checkout lanes so you can get the birds and the bees conversation with your kids out of the way early. Universal literacy has its economic upsides - certainly our economy wouldn’t be where it is today without the ability of the average Joe to read and follow basic instructions. Culturally, universal literacy has increased the speed at which we race to the lowest cultural denominator.
As usual, Nock does not make any recommendations or prescribe any remedies. He just points out facts. The rest is left as an exercise to the reader.
Comments
-
Thank you for discussing Nock. I haven’t been able to track down a copy of his book locally or a copy that I can justify the cost, currently.
Three quotes sprang to mind reading your summary:
No matter how busy you may think you are, you must find time for reading, or surrender yourself to self-chosen ignorance.—Confucius
We shall succeed only so far as we continue that most distasteful of all activity, the intolerable labor of thought.—Learned Hand
Learning without thought is labor lost.—Confucius
Russell | 12/12/2008 01:29 PM CDT -
I bought my copy of Memoirs used though a company I found on Amazon.com. It is now so beat up that I’m considering buying another one. I see that the von Mises Institute is now selling them new for $30.
It’s worth every penny.
American Farmer | 12/12/2008 02:06 PM CDT -
Reading implies the use of the reflective faculty, and very few have that faculty developed much beyond the anthropoid stage, let alone processing it at a stage of development which makes reading practicable.
He has me worrying about myself, there.
That TJ equated literacy with intelligence might not have been too far off the mark based on the experimental evidence he had to work with at his time. Ben Franklin’s public, circulating libraries had seemingly increased the percentage of intelligent or educated men to the point that de Tocqueville (I think) noticed the difference between farmers in American and in Europe.
I think that the real difference now (and probably in Nock’s time) is that the advertisers and propagandists, aided by technology, have succeeded in distracting people more and more from thinking and into spectating. Also, the people trying desperately to separate us from our money have distracted us into “pursuits” that don’t involve thinking but involve sensation.
Just wait a few years and see how difficult it becomes to keep your kids out of organized activities. My kids are in Boy Scouts, competitive gymnastics (Level 8 - Olympians come from the elites that are one up from Level 10), soccer, orchestra, church youth groups, etc. Which one has no value? Which one shall I cut? I hardly have time to “pass printed material through my mind” much less reflect on it. I’m collecting books now, though, for the empty nest days. I guess I’ll think then.
Weetabix | 12/12/2008 05:50 PM CDT -
There are several fairly practical reasons for having Universal Literacy, among the most important is sorting out the idiots from the intelligent.
Intelligence (and Executive Function, but in this case we’re mostly worried about intelligence) does not respect class, or breeding (modulo diet and other environmental issues like lead).
We get *good* scientists, engineers and philosophers from all classes, and we *need* these people. This is not necessarily an argument for government funded public schools, but it is an argument for ensuring that it is as easy for a child to learn to read well as it is for them to avoid learning.
On another note: The written word is less useful than the spoken word, or the video for propaganda.
The written word runs in a linear fashion, but can be looped on, backtracked, put down for minutes to years while cogitation takes place, while other sources are consulted, or just while one lets it sink in.
Video, and especially spoken word are much more difficult (technically) to question or consider.
Billy Oblivion | 12/15/2008 01:26 AM CDT -
I would argue that intelligence will not be denied, and that anyone with intelligence will take pains to educate themselves. No outside force teaching people to read (or doing anything else) is necessary, the set sorts itself.
Now obviously that’s not a perfect rule, but I think experience bears it out. We have universal schooling now, and more-or-less universal literacy. None of this does a very good job of sorting the intelligent people to the top. The intelligent still have to work outside the system, frequently on their own, to educate themselves.
American Farmer | 12/15/2008 09:15 AM CDT -
While I can see the point Nock is making, I don’t know that I agree completely. The masses have always sought entertainment. When they were illiterate the entertainment took the form of theater of various types. William Shakespeare was not the only playwright in England around the turn of the 15th Century, his plays survived because they were/are GOOD. I suspect the proportion of good (Shakespeare quality) plays to bad plays then was about the same as the proportion of good literature being written today to the mountains of trash produced. Likewise with music, fine art, etc etc etc.
The vehicle for the entertainment of the masses has changed with the rise in literacy, so now you have to sort thru books to weed out garbage where once you had to do so with plays, or music, or whatever.
Mark D | 12/15/2008 09:36 AM CDT -
Along with Russell, I’d like to thank you for discussing Nock here too. I’ve ordered a copy of Memoirs… from the von Mises Institute via Amazon.com a couple of weeks ago, but I’m still awaiting delivery. I couldn’t find it anywhere in the UK :-(
I find Nock’s comment about the availability of good literature, regardless of literate population desity, quite interesting. How does Nock define ‘good literature’?
Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks and I can’t wait to get my copy so I can read along with you.
yabusame | 12/16/2008 10:21 AM CDT -
I find that I can only write about maybe 1/3 of the topics Nock covers in a chapter. So please feel free to bring up anything else you want to discuss as you read.
Taking a stab at Nock’s view of good literature…
I think he covers that in Disadvantages of Being Educated. It is something that endures time, because it not only is high-quality writing, but it teaches us something about the human condition. It is a work of art, in it’s own way. Nock talks about how the vast majority of people can’t tell the difference between good and bad literature, and that one of the characteristics of a cultured, educated person is the ability to tell the difference. Not that someone who is cultured can’t enjoy “candy” literature once in awhile, but it is important to recognize that there is a difference both in quality and in value between good literature and literature intended for popular consumption.
American Farmer | 12/17/2008 08:38 AM CDT -
At least part of the problem you’re discussing is related to the purposes of education. Jefferson’s idea of public education’s purpose was much different than Dewey’s. I would contend that the public school system is designed to inhibit education as much as possible. When students actually leave public school with the ability and desire to think intelligently, the school has failed.
This is partly why even badly underperforming students who transfer into parochial schools frequently are able to learn and achieve great things. It’s also why private and parochial schools have several times the per capita ratio of National Merit scholars than public schools.
If the goal of public schools were to teach “reading” as Nock defines it, rather than actively trying to suppress it, and the results were the same, I’d be more likely to concede the point.
Papapete | 12/18/2008 08:31 PM CDT -
Sir,
I would be obliged if you would send me an email to which I might reply, with a question that’s been plaguing me.
Respectfully,
Mark HMark Hagerman | 12/28/2008 12:26 AM CDT -
“There are several fairly practical reasons for having Universal Literacy, among the most important is sorting out the idiots from the intelligent.”
-- Sorry, no. The problem with having a goal of universal achievement is that, in the end, the achievement (education, literacy, whatever) must needs be dumbed down to accommodate the insurmountable fact that for a huge segment of the population, such achievement is unattainable.
So the definition of “literacy” moves from its original point of “being able to understand complex thought processes, storylines, and arguments expressed in print” to “being able to read a novel on the Oprah list”, or worse.
Cuba has 100% literacy. I bet that not one university graduate from Havana U. would be able to critique any of Voltaire’s essays, or a De Maupassant short story with any degree of facility.
Ditto, sadly, for many American 12-graders finishing high school, even at the top of their respective classes.
Literacy has not changed; just the standard for its judgment.
--Kim du Toit (from Connie’s laptop, in Paris)
Mrs. du Toit | 1/3/2009 11:05 AM CDT
