Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Human Beast by Tom Wolfe
heh ^ | 5 13 06 | Tom Wolfe

Posted on 05/14/2006 1:08:52 PM PDT by dennisw

Ladies and Gentlemen, this evening it is my modest intention to tell you in the short time we have together . . . everything you will ever need to know about the human beast.

I take that term, the human beast, from my idol, Emile Zola, who published a novel entitled The Human Beast in 1888, just 29 years after Darwin's The Origin of Species broke the stunning news that Homo sapiens--or Homo loquax, as I call him--was not created by God in his own image but was precisely that, a beast, not different in any essential way from snakes with fangs or orangutangs . . . or kangaroos. . . or the fang-proof mongoose. Darwin's doctrine, Evolution, leapt from the pages of a scientific monograph into every level of society in Europe and America with sensational suddenness. It created a sheerly dividing line between the God-fearing bourgeoisie who were appalled, and those people of sweetness and light whose business it was to look down at the bourgeosie from a great height. Today, of course, we call these superior people intellectuals, but intellectual didn't exist as a noun until Clemenceau applied it to Zola and Anatole France in 1896 during the Dreyfus Case. Zola's intellect was as sweetly enlightened as they made them. He was in with the in-crowd. Evenings he spent where the in-crowd went, namely, the Café Guerbois, along with Manet, Cezanne, Whistler, Nadar, and le tout Paris boheme. He took his cues from the in-crowd's views, namely, Academic art was bad, Impressionism was good, and Homo sapiens had descended from the monkeys in the trees. Human beasts? I'll give you human beasts! Zola's aforementioned novel of that name, La Bete Humaine in French, is a story of four murderers, a woman and three men, who work down at track level on the Paris-Le Havre railroad line, each closing in on a different victim, each with a different motive, including the case of a handsome young passenger train engineer with a compulsion . . . to make love to women and then kill them. With that, Zola crowned himself as the first scientific novelist, a "naturalist," to use his term, studying the human fauna.

I love my man Zola. He's my idol. But the whole business exudes irony so rich, you can taste it. It tastes like marzipan. Here we have Darwin and his doctrine that in 1859 rocks Western man's very conception of himself . . . We have the most popular writer in the world in 1888, Zola, who can't wait to bring the doctrine alive on the page . . . We have the next five generations of educated people who have believed and believe to this day that, at bottom, evolution's primal animal urges rule our lives . . . to the point where the fourth greatest pop music hit of 2001, "You and Me, Baby" by the Bloodhound Gang, proclaims, "You and me, baby, we ain't nothing but mammals. / So let's do it like they do on the Dis-cov-ery Channel"--it's rich! rich! rich beyond belief!

O. I love you, Emile, but by the time you and Darwin got hold of it, evolution had been irrelevant for 11,000 years. Why couldn't you two see it? Evolution came to an end when the human beast developed speech! As soon as he became not Homo sapiens, "man reasoning," but Homo loquax, "man talking"! Speech gave the human beast far more than an ingenious tool. Speech was a veritable nuclear weapon! It gave the human beast the powers of reason, complex memory, and long-term planning, eventually in the form of print and engineering plans. Speech gave him the power to enlarge his food supply at will through an artifice called farming. Speech ended not only the evolution of man, by making it no longer necessary, but also the evolution of animals! Our animal friends--we're very sentimental about predators these days, aren't we--the lions, the tigers, the wolves, the rhinoceroses, the great apes, kangaroos, leopards, cheetahs, grizzly bears, polar bears, cougars--they're "endangered," meaning hanging on for dear life. Today the so-called animal kingdom exists only at the human beast's sufferance. The beast has dealt crippling blows even to the unseen empire of the microbes. Stunted adults from Third World countries with abysmal sanitation come to the United States and their offspring grow six or more inches taller, thanks to the wonders of hygiene. Cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens, turkeys would be extinct by now had not the human beasts hit upon the idea of animal husbandry. So far the human beast enjoys the luxury of crying sentimental tears over the deer because she's so pretty. But the day the human beast discovers deer in his cellar, fawns in his bedroom closet, bucks tangling horns in the attic at night above his very bedroom . . . those filthy oversized vermin, the deer, will be added to that big long list above. We're sentimental about the dolphins, because they're so smart. What about the tuna? It's okay to kill tunas by the ton because they're dimwits? It would take an evolutionary mystic (and there are such) to believe these animals will ever evolve their way out of the hole they're in thanks to man's power of speech.

No evolutionist has come up with even an interesting guess as to when speech began, but it was at least 11,000 years ago, which is to say, 9000 B.C. It seems to be the consensus . . . in the notoriously capricious field of evolutionary chronology . . . that 9000 B.C. was about when the human beast began farming, and the beast couldn't have farmed without speech, without being able to say to his son, "Son, this here's seeds. You best be putting 'em in the ground in rows ov'ere like I tell you if you wanna git any ears a corn this summer."

Do forgive me, Emile, but here is the tastiest of all ironies. One of Homo loquax's first creations after he learned to talk was religion. Since The Origin of Species in 1859 the doctrine of Evolution has done more than anything else to put an end to religious faith among educated people in Europe and America; for God is dead. But it was religion, more than any other weapon in Homo loquax's nuclear arsenal, that killed evolution itself 11,000 years ago. To say that evolution explains the nature of modern man is like saying that the Bessemer process of adding carbons to pig iron to make steel explains the nature of the modern skyscraper.

Now shall we begin? Shall we take a look at the actual nature of the human beast--an artificial selection, 100% man-made?

To start with, I beg your indulgence in a scrap of personal history. In 1951 I graduated from Washington and Lee University, where I majored in English, and entered the Yale University graduate school seeking a Ph.D. in American Studies. American Studies was an interdisciplinary field, requiring the study of, among other disciplines, sociology. I recall having the standard literary attitude toward sociology, a pleasant assurance that the social sciences in general were undeserving arrivistes, nouveau admis, here in the realm of the higher things. That notion vanished the moment I came upon the work of the German sociologist Max Weber.

Weber was well known in academia for his essay "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism," written after he toured the United Sates in 1904. It was the origin of the unfortunately non-Protestant cliché, "the work ethic." He introduced the terms "charisma" and "charismatic" in their current usage; also "bureaucracy," which he characterized as "the routinization of charisma." He coined the term "style of life," which was converted into the compound noun "lifestyle" and put to work as the title of a thousand sections of newspapers across the United States. But what caught my imagination was the single word "status." In a very short, very dense essay called "Class, Status, and Party" he introduced an entirely new concept.

I was by no means the first person to get excited over Weber's "status." The concept was well known within the field of sociology, although it was more often expressed in such terms as "social class," "social stratification," "prestige systems," and "mobility." Six years later Weber's terms "status-seeking" and "status symbols" began showing up in the press. Soon they were part of everyday language.

The great American sociologists of the 1950s, W. Lloyd Warner, the Lynns, August B. Hollingshead, E. Digby Baltzell, C. Wright Mills, David Riesman, were turning out studies of how Americans rated others and themselves, often unconsciously, according to race, ethnic group, address, occupation, vocabulary, shopping habits, bill-paying habits (personal checks in lump sums as opposed to installment payments in cash), bureaucratic status symbols (corner offices, fine wooden desks as opposed to metal ones, water carafes, sofas as well as chairs, speaker phones, etageres of brass and glass), education (the great divide existing between those who had bachelor's degrees from a respectable four-year college as opposed to those who didn't), even sexual practices. The upper orders made love with the lights on and no bed covers. The lower orders--in the 1950s--found this perverted. Sociologists never rejected Karl Marx's brilliant breakdown of society into classes. But his idea of an upper class--the owners of "the means of production"--and their satellites, the bourgeoisie, in a struggle with the masses, the working class, was too rigid to describe competition among human beast in the 20th century. Weber's entirely novel concept of "status groups" proved to be both more flexible and more penetrating psychologically.

Within the ranks of the rich, including the "owners of the means of production," there inevitably developed an inner circle known as Society. Such groups always believed themselves to be graced with "status honor," as Weber called it. Status honor existed quite apart from such gross matters as raw wealth and power. Family background, education, manners, dress, cultivation, style of life--these, the ineffable things, were what granted you your exalted place in Society.

Military officer corps are rife with inner circles aloof from the official and all-too-political hierarchy of generals, admirals, and the rest. I went to work on a book called The Right Stuff thinking it would be a story of space exploration. In no time at all, I happened upon something far more fascinating. The astronauts were but part of an invisible, and deadly, competitive pyramid within an inner circle of American military fighter pilots and test pilots, and they were by no means at the apex. I characterized this pyramid as a ziggurat, because it consisted of innumerable and ever more deadly steps a fighter pilot had to climb to reach the top. The competition demanded an uncritical willingness to face danger, to face death, not once but daily, if required, not only in combat but also in the routine performance of his duties--without ever showing fear--in behalf of a noble cause, the protection of his nation. There were more ways to die in a routine takeoff of a supersonic jet fighter of the F-series than most mortals could possibly imagine. At the time, a Navy pilot flying for twenty years, an average career span, stood a 23 percent chance of dying in an accident and a 56 percent chance of having to eject at some point, which meant being shot out of the plane like a human rocket by a charge of dynamite under his seat, smashing into what was known as the "wall" of air outside, which could tear the flesh off your face, and descending by parachute. The figures did not include death or ejection in combat, since they were not considered accidental. According to Korean War lore, a Navy fighter pilot began shouting out over the combat radio network, "I've got a Mig at zero! A Mig at zero! I've got a Mig at zero!" A Mig at zero meant a Soviet supersonic fighter plane was squarely on his tail and could blow him out of the sky at any moment. Another voice, according to legend, broke in and said, "Shut up and die like an aviator." Such "chatter," such useless talk on the radio during combat, was forbidden. The term "aviator" was the final, exquisite touch of status sensitivity. Navy pilots always called themselves aviators. Marine and Air Force fliers were merely pilots. The reward for reaching the top of the ziggurat was not money, not power, not even military rank. The reward was status honor, the reputation of being a warrior with ultimate skill and courage--a word, by the way, strictly taboo among the pilots themselves. The same notion of status honor motivates virtually every police and fire fighting force in the world.

Status groups, Weber contended, are the creators of all new styles of life. In his heyday, the turn of the 19th century, the most stylish new status sphere, no more than 30 years old, was known as la vie boheme, the bohemian life. The bohemians were artists plus the intellectuals and layabouts in their orbit. They did their best to stand bourgeois propriety on its head through rakish dishabille, louder music, more wine, great gouts of it, ostentatious cohabitation, and by flaunting their poverty as a virtue. And why? Because they all came from the bourgeoisie themselves originally and wanted nothing more desperately than to distinguish themselves from it. They seldom mentioned the upper class, Marx's owners of "the means of production." They seldom mentioned Marx's working class, except in sentimental appreciation of the workers' occasional show of rebelliousness. No, as the late Jean-Francois Revel said of mid-20th century French intellectuals, the bohemians' sole object was to separate themselves from the mob, the rabble, which today is known as the middle class.

I thought bohemia had been brought to its apogee in the 1960s, before my very eyes, by the hippies, originally known as acid heads, in reference to the drug LSD, with their Rapunzel hair down to the shoulder blades among the males and great tangled thickets of hair in the armpits of the women, all living in communes. The communes inevitably turned religious thanks to the hallucinations hippies experienced while on LSD and a whole array of other hallucinogens whose names no one can remember. Some head--short for acid head--would end up in the middle of Broadway, one of San Francisco's main drags, sitting cross-legged in the Lotus position, looking about, wide eyes glistening with beatification, shouting, "I'm in the pudding and I've met the manager! I'm in the pudding and I've met the manager!" Seldom had so many gone so far to feel aloof from the middle class.

But I was wrong. They were not the ones who raised rejection of the middle class to its final, Olympian level. For what were the hippies and their communes compared to the great bohemians of our time in the status sphere known as Hip Hop, with its black rappers and "posses" and groupies, its hordes of hangers-on--and its millions of followers and believers among the youth of America, white and black? The Hip Hop style of life turns bourgeois propriety inside out. It celebrates the status system of the Street, which is to say, the standards of juvenile male street gangs, so-called gangbangers. What matters is masculinity to burn and a disdain of authority. The rappers themselves always put on looks of sullen hostility for photographs. The hippies' clothes of yore look like no more than clown costumes next to the voluminous Hip Hop jeans with the crotch at knee level and the pants legs cascading into great puddles of fabric at the ankles, the T-shirts hanging outside the pants and just short of knee level and as much as a foot below their leather jackets or windbreakers, and the black bandannas known as do-rags around their heads. What were the hippies' LSD routs known as acid tests . . . compared to the Hip Hop stars' status tests that require shooting and assassinating one another periodically? How cool is that? One of my favorite sights in New York is that of a 14- or-15-year-old boy who has just descended from his family's $10 or $12 million apartment and is emerging onto the sidewalks of Park Avenue dressed Hip-Hop head to crotch, walking through a brass-filigreed door held open by a doorman in a uniform that looks like an Austrian army colonel's from 1870.

Not all status groups are either as competitive as capital-S Society's and the military's or as hostile as the bohemians'. Some are comprised of much broader populations from much larger geographic areas. My special favorites are the Good Ol' Boys, as I eventually called them. I happened upon them while working on an article about stock car racing. Good ol' boys are rural Southerners and Midwesterners seldom educated beyond high school or community college, sometimes owners of small farms but more likely working for wages in factories, warehouses, and service companies. They are mainly but by no means exclusively Scots-Irish Protestants in background and are Born Fighting, to use the title of a brilliant recent work of ethnography by James Webb. They have been the backbone of American combat forces ever since the Revolution, including, as it turns out, both armies during the Civil War. They love hunting, they love their guns, and they believe, probably correctly, that the only way to train a boy to kill Homines loquaces in battle someday is to take him hunting to learn to kill animals, starting with rabbits and squirrels and graduating to beasts as big or bigger than Homo loquax, such as the deer and the bear. Good ol' boys look down on social pretension of any sort. They place a premium on common sense and are skeptical of people with theories they don't put to the test themselves.

I offer an illustration provided to me by a gentleman who is in this audience tonight and who witnessed the following: It was the mid-1940s, during the second World War, and a bunch of good ol' boys too old for military service were sitting around in a general store in Scotland County, North Carolina, waiting for a representative of a cattleman's association. They fell to discussing the war.

One of them said, "Seems to me this whole war's on account of one man, Adolph Hitler. 'Stead a sending all these supply ships to England and whatnot and getting'm sunk out in the Atlantic Ocean by U-boats, why don't we just go ov'ere and shoot him?"

"Whatcha mean, 'just go ov'ere and shoot him'?"

"Just go to where he lives and shoot the sonofabitch."

"I 'speck it ain't that easy. He's probably got a wall around his house."

"Maybe he does. But you git me a boat to git me ov'ere and I'll do it myself."

"How?"

"I'll wait'il it's night time . . . see . . . and then I'll go around to the back of the house and climb the wall and hide behind a tree. I'll stay there all night, and then in the morning, when he comes out in the yard to pee, I'll shoot him."

Quite in addition to the Good Ol' Boy's level of sophistication, that story reveals four things: a disdain for the futility of government and its cumbersome ways of approaching problems, a faith in common sense, reliance on the inner discipline of the individual--and guns.

Even before I left graduate school I had come to the conclusion that virtually all people live by what I think of as a "fiction-absolute." Each individual adopts a set of values which, if truly absolute in the world--so ordained by some almighty force--would make not that individual but his group . . . the best of all possible groups, the best of all inner circles. Politicians, the rich, the celebrated, become mere types. Does this apply to "the intellectuals" also? Oh, yes. . . perfectly, all too perfectly.

The human beast's belief in his own fiction-absolute accounts for one of the most puzzling and in many cases irrational phenomena of our time. I first noticed it when I read a book by Samuel Lubell called The Future of American Politics. Lubell was a political scientist and sociologist who had been as surprised as everybody else by the outcome of the 1948 presidential election. That was the election in which the Democratic incumbent, Harry Truman, was a president whose approval rating had fallen as low as 23 percent. Every survey, every poll, every pundit's prediction foresaw him buried by the Republican nominee, Thomas E. Dewey. Instead, Truman triumphed in one of the most startling upsets in American political history. Lubell was determined to find out why, and so he set out across the country. When he reached a small Midwestern town that had been founded before the turn of the 19th century by Germans, he was puzzled to learn that the town had gone solidly for Dewey despite the fact that by every rational turn of logic, every economic motivation, Truman would have been a more logical choice. By and by Lubell discovered that the town was still predominantly German. Nobody had ever gotten over the fact that in 1917, a Democrat, President Woodrow Wilson, had declared war on Germany. That had set off a wave of anti-German feeling, anti-German prejudice, and, in the eyes of the people of this town, besmirched their honor as people of German descent. And now, two World Wars later, their minds were fixed on the year 1917, because like all other human beasts, they tended to champion in an irrational way their own set of values, their own fiction absolute. The question Lubell asked was very much like the question that Thomas Frank asked after the election of 2004 in his book What's the Matter with Kansas? By all economic and political logic, the state of Kansas should have gone to John Kerry, the Democrat, in 2004. But it didn't. Had Frank only looked back to Samuel Lubell, he would have known why. The 2004 election came down to one state: the state of Ohio. Whoever won that state in the final hours would win the election. Northern Ohio, the big cities of Cleveland, Toledo on the Great Lakes, were solidly for Kerry. But in southern Ohio, from east to west, and in the west was the city of Cincinnati, Ohio went solidly for George Bush. And the reason? That great swath of territory was largely inhabited by the Scots-Irish. And when the Democrats came out in favor of gun control, the Scots-Irish interpreted this as not merely an attack on the proliferation of weaponry in American life but as a denunciation, a besmirching, of their entire way of life, their entire fiction absolute. Guns were that important in their scheme of things.

More recently, I returned to Washington and Lee for a conference on the subject of Latin American writing in the United States. The conference soon became a general and much hotter discussion of the current immigration dispute. I had arrived believing that, for example, Mexicans who had gone to the trouble of coming to the United States legally, going through all the prescribed steps, would resent the fact that millions of Mexicans were now coming into the United States illegally across the desert border. I couldn't have been more mistaken. I discovered that everyone who thought of himself as Latin, even people who had been in this country for two and three generations, were wholeheartedly in favor of immediate amnesty and immediate citizenship for all Mexicans who happened now to be in the United States. And this feeling had nothing to do with immigration policy itself, nothing to do with law, nothing to do with politics, for that matter. To them, this was not a debate about immigration. The very existence of the debate itself was to them a besmirching of their fiction-absolute, of their conception of themselves as Latins. Somehow the debate, simply as a debate, cast an aspersion upon all Latins, implying doubt about their fitness to be within the border of such a superior nation.

The same phenomenon, championism, I believe, solves the mystery of something I had been unable to figure out for a very long time, namely, what is it that accounts for the extraordinary emotion of sports fans? What earthly connection do the citizens of New York City think they have to, say, the New York Yankees, whose team includes not one person from the city of New York, which is, in fact, 40 percent Latin American, and an assortment of mercenaries who will play anywhere for the top dollar? How can such a team get such a strong grip on local emotions? Here we see championism in its most elemental form. As far back as the story of David and Goliath in the Bible, the human beast has become excited by those who represent them in what at that stage of history was known as single combat. Before a battle was fought each side would send forth its fighting champion. Goliath, a giant, protected by the most elaborate armor, was so awesome, that at first no one among the Israelites dared confront him. Finally, a young unknown named David volunteered. He turned down King Saul's offer of his own armor as protection and said he preferred to travel light and fast. He proceeded to slay Goliath with a slingshot. At this point, The Philistine army panicked. The defeat of its great champion was seen as a sign from the gods. They fled, the Israelites pursued and slaughtered them. This notion of a surrogate, a champion, who can represent an entire people and give them the exultation of victory when it triumphs and plunge them into depression of defeat when he loses, has persisted for millennia.

Single combat was never pursued as a substitute for actual battle; these contests were always held as an indication of which way the gods were leaning. Nevertheless, both the exultation and the depression were real emotions, curious emotions, on the face of it, entirely aroused by status concerns. The surprising insinuations of status concerns into every area of life must be understood if one is to understand the nature of the human beast. Consider the toxic power of humiliation. Humiliation is a wound inflicted upon the beast's status picture of himself, upon the validity of his standing within the boundaries of his own fiction absolute. Not long ago, in New York, a drug dealer named Pappy Mason was out of prison on parole standing on the sidewalk in front of a bar with a group of his buddies, drinking a beer. A police detective happened to be driving by in an unmarked car and recognized him. He stopped, got out, and said "Mason, you know what stupid is? Stupid is what you're doing right now, drinking in public. You get your ass back in that building--or I'm taking your ass in." Now here was Mason, in front of his buddies. He had a terrible decision to make. Taking his ass in meant taking him to the precinct station and booking him. Drinking on the sidewalk was--a--Mickey Mouse--misdemeanor but it was enough to violate his parole and put him right back in prison. On the other hand, just caving in to some pig of a cop in front of his posse and slinking back into the bar was unthinkable . . .On the other hand, maybe it was thinkable . . .To go back to jail--so he did think . . .slinked back into the bar . . .You did what you had to do, Pappy--but the humiliation! the humiliation! A day passed, two days passed--the humiliation! Day after day it festered . . . festered . . . Eventually he found himself back in prison for an unrelated offense . . .and the same old humiliation . . .slinking back into the bar that night . . .festered . . . Finally, it became too much. He got a message out to one of his boys on the outside: "Go kill a cop." And the guy said, "What cop?" And Mason said, "Any cop." And so three members of his posse drove about . . . looking for a cop, any cop They came upon a young patrolman alone in a police car in front of the house of an immigrant from Guinea who, as it tuned out had been threatened by drug dealers. They had already tried to burn down his house because he had reported their activities to the police. The young cop, named Eddie Byrne, had been assigned to protect him. It was now late at night, quiet, and the three assailants came up behind the car and assassinated the young policeman. It became a cause of public outrage. It had taken the life of a young man, Eddie Byrne. Yes, but the cops . . .they had trashed Pappy Mason's status picture of himself.

That a wound to one's status, not to one's body, not to one's bank account, not to one's general fortunes in life, that such a wound to one's status could have such a severe effect upon the psyche of the human beast, is no minor matter. It means that we have come upon a form of anguish that is somehow primal. Even the most trivial and the most unlikely circumstances can be colored by the beast's constant and unrelenting concern for his own status. Which is to stay, his own standing, his own rank, in the eyes of others and in his own eyes.

It could be anything as minor and trivial as a man in New York in a taxi five, perhaps even ten blocks from his destination, agonizing over what tip he should give the driver. His status verdict would be in the hands of only one person, the driver, someone he would most likely never see again. And yet, the human beast is perfectly capable of devoting the most excrutiating mental energy to such a trifling decision. When I was working on a novel about college life entitled I Am Charlotte Simmons, I kept coming upon situations in which I thought surely other emotions would rule, love, if not love, passion, or if not passion, at least lust. Instead, as elsewhere, status ruled. Undergraduate life today, involves a status system in which sexual activity can be summed up as "Our eyes met, our lips met, our bodies met, and then we were introduced." The attitude young women have toward their own sexual activity, as well as the impression others have of it, has turned 180 degrees in one generation. There was a time when the worst . . . slut . . . for want of a better term . . . maintained a virginal and chaste façade. Today, the most virginal and chaste undergraduate wants to create a façade of sexual experience. One night I was in a college lounge sitting on a sofa that was backed up against a narrow table. Another sofa was backed up likewise on the other side. All at once a voice from the sofa behind me, a boy's voice was saying, "What are you talking about? How could I? We've known each other since before Choate! It would be like incest!" And then I heard the girl say, "Please. Come on. I can't stand the thought of having to do it with somebody I hardly know and can't trust." It turned out that she was beseeching him, her old Platonic friend of years' standing, to please relieve her of her virginity, deflower her. That way she could honestly maintain the proper social stance as an experienced young woman in college.

Even before I had left graduate school I had begun to wonder if somewhere in the brain there might be a center that interpreted incoming data and gave the human beast the feeling he was improving its status, merely maintaining its status, or suffering the grave wound of humiliation.

I turned to the literature of the physiology of the brain for the answer, only to discover that Sigmund Freud had stopped the physical study of the brain cold for 40 years. Freud had been so persuasive, had so convinced the scientific community and the academic community in general that he had found the final answers to mental disturbance in his theories of the id, the ego, the superego, and the Oedipal drama within the family, that it was rather pointless to go through the tedious, laborious business of determining what synapses, what dendrites, what circuits in the brain accounted for what one already knew anyway. The physical study of the brain didn't resume until 1969, thanks to the work of a Spanish physician and brain physiologist named Jose Delgado. Delgado was somewhat well-known already because of a striking and very public experiment he had conducted in a bull ring in Madrid. Delgado was experimenting with stereotaxic needle implants and other painless ways to reach regions of the brains of animals and eventually, as it turned out, humans. He was so sure that he had found specific regions of the brain that created specific reactions within animals that he had come into the bull ring possessing only a small radio transmitter and had allowed himself to be charged by a one and a half ton bull tormented into a state of rage by picadors. The bull charged. Delgado stood there, motionless. The bull finally reached the critical point where it would be useless for anyone, even a toreador, to flee. Delgado pressed a button on the radio transmitter--and the bull came to a shuddering halt within feet of the scientist, and then turned and trotted off in the other direction. Delgado had also run tests of sensory deprivation on healthy young college students. He put them in sensory deprivation chambers that were absolutely soundless. The temperature was set so that the human body would detect neither heat nor cold. The room was well-lit, but the subject wore translucent goggles and could perceive light but he could make out no details. The subject wore special gloves that reduced the tactile sense to a minimum. Within hours, not days, the subjects, these healthy young people, would begin hallucinating, losing their minds. To Delgado, this was proof of his proposition that the human mind is in fact not the possession of the individual but more of a town square into which anyone can come, into which any animal can come, into which even vegetation can come. And what the human beast thinks is his mind is in fact--and these were Delgado's words--a "transitory combination of elements borrowed from the environment."

Delgado's theory of the mind as totally dependent upon the environment perhaps explains some of the more bizarre anomalies of recent history. In what became known as the Stockholm Syndrome, and in the case of Patty Hearst, young women were abducted and put into an environment totally controlled by their captors and closed to any outside influences whatsoever. In both cases, the young women emerged as friends and comrades of their captors; and in Patty Hearst's case, as their confederate in a bank hold-up. Having no other basis upon which to base their own status, they adopted an entirely new one.

But even those cases seem straightforward compared to the case of Kyle Zirpolo and the McMartin Day Care Center scandal of 1984. Zirpolo was eight years old at the time and became one of a score of children claiming to have recovered repressed memories of the McMartins subjecting them to sexual molestation and the most fiendish and depraved abuse. Some of the testimony of these children seemed so utterly bizarre that the prosecution dared not introduce it at the McMartin's trial. After six years of trials and appeals, the McMartins were found not guilty. This started speculation that the children had been brainwashed by the clinicians who had summoned up the supposed memories. The truth proved to be more shocking. Last year, now 29 years old, Kyle Zirpolo revealed that he and the others had known all along that the McMartins had not abused them in any way. Kyle Zirpolo had been put in a situation in which both the clinicians and his own parents insisted, with all the certainty of adults, that these things that happened, and he, Kyle, was too frightened to admit it. After repeatedly telling his parents that nothing had happened, he caved in to the mounting status pressure and testified to things he was quite aware of making up. Ever since then he had been tormented by the hell that he and the other children had put the McMartins through, destroying their reputations as well as their livelihood.

Delgado stressed the role of culture. Culture referred to those things in human life that could not exist without speech, whether culture in the sense of the arts or culture in the sense of the manners and mores of a society. Delgado insisted that the brain and its genetic history and evolution was simply the substratum upon which culture wrought its effects. He did not know the precise neural path. After all, he was re-opening a field that had been dormant for 40 years. But just last year, barely 6 months ago, three neurobiologists may very well have discovered the answer, in a study of African cichlid fish published in an article entitled, "Rapid behavioral and genomic responses to social opportunity" in the journal PLoS Biology. Russell Fernald of Stanford, his former associate Sabrina Burmeister, now at the University of North Carolina, and Erich Jarvis of Duke studied the behavior of the fish in a laboratory tank. In the tank was an obviously dominant male and his subjects, male and female. The others were gray in color but the dominant male had swelled up within a skin of lurid stripes and was the only male who had access to the females. They then removed the dominant male in the dark of night. When light returned, another male, just as gray as before, noticed the absence of the ruler, whereupon he swelled up with a skin of lurid colors, and his gonads immediately grew to eight times their previous size, and now he had exclusive access to the females. The three neurobiologists determined that a purely social situation, a status situation, had caused changes in the brain of the newly-dominant male at the cellular and molecular level, set off by a gene, known as egr-1, located in the anterior preoptic area. They had established that a change in social status had caused a change in the brain. It was the opposite of the situation envisioned by Neo-Darwinists neuroscientists who assume is that the genetic inheritance triggers changes in status.

Only foolish writers make predictions instead of descriptions, but this fool feels certain that Fernald, Burmeister, and Jarvis are sure bets for a Nobel prize in biology, should such a social influence prove to be the case with human beasts. The Neo-Darwinists, who dominate neuroscience in America today, have not responded, but in the past they have always characterized human behavior as but an evolutionary echo of non-human beasts. On the subject of status rankings and status-seeking, they point out that not only chickens but innumerable other animals have pecking orders. As for status groups, if you put a flock of canaries in a large enough cage, they will separate into smaller groups, each dominated by the biggest and most aggressive male. When the dominant male of one group is forced to confront a dominant male from another, at the central feeding station, one will passively submit to domination by the other.

As recently as the year 1000, Neo-Darwinists might argue, the entire world was divided into warriors and slaves or virtual slaves, aside from a few highly skilled artisans organized into guilds. Not only that, when the warriors couldn't find a real war to fight, they fought each other with blunted swords and spears in tournaments. At the conclusion of a tournament, ordinary religious restrictions on sexual behavior were suspended long enough for the winners to help themselves to as many young women as they cared to. The young women were there expressly for that purpose. This reward, which is so similar to that of dominant males among the non-human beasts, endures symbolically to this day in the form of pretty little cheerleaders with short skirts and their underpants showing.

But such comparisons collapse when the human beasts' third class is taken into account. This is the clergy, the priests and the prophets. Here in the 21st century, it is impossible to comprehend the power that the clergy had 1000 years ago. In the year 1082, Pope Urban II gave a speech on a platform in a field in France in which he exhorted all the knights of Europe--of Christendom--to go to the Middle East and take back Jerusalem and the Holy Land from the Saracens, referring to the ruling Arabic Muslims. Immediately the Crusades began. Later, cynics would maintain that the Crusaders had gone to the Middle East only to bring back the booty that was eventually theirs. In fact, the warriors hadn't the faintest idea of what they would find. They were obeying the command of their Holy Father, the Pope. Until well into the Middle Ages the German Empire continued to call itself the Holy Roman Empire.

Book One, first verse, of the Book of John in the New Testament says cryptically: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This has baffled Biblical scholars, but I interpret it as follows: Until there was speech, the human beast could have no religion, and consequently no God. In the beginning was the Word. Speech gave the beast its first ability to ask questions, and undoubtedly one of the first expressed his sudden but insatiable anxiety as to how he got here and what this agonizing struggle called life is all about. To this day, the beast needs, can't live without, some explanation as the basis of whatever status he may think he possesses. For that reason, extraordinary individuals have been able to change history with their words alone, without the assistance of followers, money, or politicians. Their names are Jesus, John Calvin, Mohammed, Marx, Freud--and Darwin. And this, rather than any theory, is what makes Darwin the monumental figure that he is. The human beast does not require that the explanation offer hope. He will believe whatever is convincing. Jesus offered great hope: The last shall be first and the meek shall inherit the earth. Calvin offered less. Mohammed, more and less. Marx, even more than Jesus: The meek will take over the earth now! Freud offered more sex. Darwin offered nothing at all. Each, however, has left an enduring influence. Jesus is the underpinning of both Marxism and political correctness in American universities. There was a 72-year field experiment in Marxism, which failed badly. But Marx's idea of one class dominating another may remain with us forever. In medical terms, Freud is now considered a quack. But his notion of sex as an energy like the steam in a boiler, which must be released in an orderly fashion or the boiler will blow up, remains with us, too. At this very moment, as we gather here in the Warner Theatre, you can be sure that there are literally millions of loin spasms and hip-joint convulsions that are taking place at this very instant throughout the world that would not be occurring were it not for the power of the words of Sigmund Freud. Today, Charles Darwin still reigns, but his most fervent followers, American neuroscientists, are deeply concerned about this irritating matter of culture, the product of speech. Led by the British neuroscientist Richard Dawkins, they currently propose that culture is the product of "memes" or "culturegens", which operate like genes and produce culture. There is a problem, however. Genes exist, but memes don't. The concept of memes is like the concept of Jack Frost ten centuries ago. Jack Frost was believed to be an actual, living, albeit invisible, creature who went about in the winter freezing fingertips and making the ground too hard to plow. Noam Chomsky has presented another problem. He maintains that there is no sign that speech evolved from any form of life lower than man. It's not that there is a missing link, he says. It's that there is absolutely nothing in any other animal to link up with. It becomes difficult for Neo-Darwinists to continue to say that structures consisting only of words are not real and durable. What accounts for the fact, to choose but one example, that Islam has directed the lives and behavior of literally billions of people since the eighth century?

Princeton anthropologist Clifford Geertz has written, "There is no such thing as a human nature independent of culture. Men without culture would not even be the clever savages of Lord of the Flies."

Now, at last, may we begin the proper study of homo loquax


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: evolution; sociology; tomwolfe

1 posted on 05/14/2006 1:08:59 PM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dennisw
The Human Beast, By Tom Wolfe, Jefferson Lecture speech as prepared for delivery

Tom Wolfe, 2006 Jefferson Lecturer

2 posted on 05/14/2006 1:10:18 PM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

bump for later (when I have an hour or two to read all that)


3 posted on 05/14/2006 1:14:14 PM PDT by lesser_satan (EKTHELTHIOR!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Ping for later!


4 posted on 05/14/2006 1:28:11 PM PDT by GOP Poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Very pithy.


5 posted on 05/14/2006 1:34:30 PM PDT by battlegearboat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Thanks for posting. Very interesting. He makes many insightful observations, and then sometimes he follows up with something that seems contradictory or unrelated. Is he checking to see if we're paying attention?

For example he cites Pope Urban II's successful exhortation to 12th century knights to start the Crusades as an example of clerical power, when in the paragraph directly above he said that when warriors didn't have a war they created artificial "wars" –tournaments. It seems to me that the knights were probably happy to find a real war to occupy them.

I really don't get this:
"In medical terms, Freud is now considered a quack. But his notion of sex as an energy like the steam in a boiler, which must be released in an orderly fashion or the boiler will blow up, remains with us, too. At this very moment, as we gather here in the Warner Theatre, you can be sure that there are literally millions of loin spasms and hip-joint convulsions that are taking place at this very instant throughout the world that would not be occurring were it not for the power of the words of Sigmund Freud."

Is he saying that millions of people are engaging in sex only because Freud encouraged them to rather than explode with the pent up desire? You know, I bet that's not the first thing on their minds. But what a way with words!


6 posted on 05/14/2006 1:44:52 PM PDT by edweena
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

bump for later.


7 posted on 05/14/2006 1:48:07 PM PDT by Dark Skies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: dennisw

What a great read! Thank you so much!
PJ


10 posted on 05/14/2006 2:10:40 PM PDT by BruceysMom (.I'm hot & not in a good way, menopause ain't for sissies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

I am speechless!!


11 posted on 05/14/2006 2:12:28 PM PDT by bubman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
A pleasure to read. I wasn't aware Wolfe thought that neuroscience is beginning to oppose neo-Darwinism. Is that a new development? I thought he was a big booster of evolutionary psychology in humans under the neo-Darwinian paradigm.

His depiction of language as a qualitative leap is foreshadowed in the semiotic works of Walker Percy, also a novelist but a doctor as well.

12 posted on 05/14/2006 2:18:15 PM PDT by Dumb_Ox (http://kevinjjones.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Tom Wolfe is a great writer, with great insight into our
society. His ability to coin phrases and/or mangle our
current vernacular with incredible accurary is legendary.

His basic thesis that cultured humans strive for their
exaltation in their own "statussphere" is correct up to a
point. The striving will stop when people realize that the
statusphere is an illusion.This occurs when the "life"
these folks live is changed by positive entropic
effects (i.e. disease, physical degradation, and death).
Then the question of the meaning of existence and the future
of ones existing come into play. Saying that Jesus only
brought hope in this world was truly downplaying the
documents written about Christ. The documents about Christ
talk about his unearthly ways, and his domination of
death by his resurrection. The statussphere(if you will) to be obtained
is "living with the author of life" and not final
irreversible degradation.


13 posted on 05/14/2006 2:29:57 PM PDT by Getready
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Getready

The striving will stop when people realize that the
statusphere is an illusion.This occurs when the "life"
these folks live is changed by positive entropic
effects (i.e. disease, physical degradation, and death).

Positive entropic effects - that's a great way of putting it. It's true, people often don't get off the ego train until they are forced off by illness or loss of a loved one or some other major life event. And in modern times that awakening doesn't happen to many folks until at least middle age.


14 posted on 05/14/2006 2:37:38 PM PDT by Sabatier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Thanks for posting. Interesting (long) read!


15 posted on 05/14/2006 2:47:32 PM PDT by operation clinton cleanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edweena
I take Tom as saying Freud created what we call the "sexual revolution."
16 posted on 05/14/2006 2:58:36 PM PDT by razorback-bert (Kooks For Kinky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

bttt


17 posted on 05/14/2006 2:59:57 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
"You and Me, Baby" by the Bloodhound Gang, proclaims, "You and me, baby, we ain't nothing but mammals. / So let's do it like they do on the Dis-cov-ery Channel"

IIRC, the video's theme was apes going to Paris to capture French people for exhibit.

18 posted on 05/14/2006 3:01:23 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Thx for posting this dennis...

It was a long read and during the reading of it, I found myself (or at least my opinion of this article) evolving.

In the beginning I thought, "that Tom Wolfe sure can write...I wonder where he's going with this."

Sometime around the middle, I thought, "Tom sure has transformed a very complicated world into a much simpler one."

But by the end, I thought this article could be entitled, "Bart Simpson's History of the World."

If Tom wants to evolve, I suggest he leave his multi-million dollar co-op on Park Ave by way of the internet...and start FReeping. His article would be much meatier if he had subjected himself to the intellectual colosseum at Free Republic.com. It is obvious that he is gifted but just as obvious that he is not bringing his ideas down to street level...down to Freep Street.

19 posted on 05/14/2006 3:03:09 PM PDT by Dark Skies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Great essay!


20 posted on 05/14/2006 3:11:08 PM PDT by Revolting cat! ("In the end, nothing explains anything.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dumb_Ox
His depiction of language as a qualitative leap is foreshadowed in the semiotic works of Walker Percy, also a novelist but a doctor as well.

But Walker Percy had heart, something that I find slightly absent in Tom Wolfe. I had a mutual friend with Percy and when my friend mention to Walker how fond I was of his works and what I thought of each of his novels, Percy sent me a copy of The Moviegoer with a carefully written personal note (as pertained to my comments) and autographed appropriately.

I have a pic of Percy hanging in my office. I like Wolfe, but I don't think his pic would inspire.

21 posted on 05/14/2006 3:12:49 PM PDT by Dark Skies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Wow. Wolfe is similar to Steyn, except that he goes into more detail and he goes deeper.
22 posted on 05/14/2006 3:22:49 PM PDT by Tom D. (Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. - Benj. Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dumb_Ox
A pleasure to read.

It was. Does he fall short of addressing the crucial point? These questions surrounding language are first taken up by Plato, especially in the Cratylus and the Phaedrus. In these dialogues, there is no ambivalence about the Socratic position. Never mind whether the conventional, natural, or solipsistic potencies of language are ever seen among lesser beasts. What Socrates found disturbing was the all-too-human presumption that the potencies of language gave license to pronounce the race divine. No doubt beastly are those who will not see what is at the heart of sophism.

In the Phaedrus, toward the end, we are told how to tell the difference between the words of an honest person and a sophist; that is, how to tell the difference between good and bad language. He says,

TYPE A:

If Lysias or anyone else ever wrote or ever shall write, in private, or in public as lawgiver, a political document, and in writing it believes that it possesses great certainty and clearness, then it is a disgrace to the writer, whether anyone says so, or not. For whether one be awake or asleep, ignorance of right and wrong and good and bad is in truth inevitably a disgrace, even if the whole mob applaud it.

TYPE B:

But the man who thinks that in writing there is necessarily much that is a game, and that there is no written discourse, whether in meter or in prose, that deserves to be treated so seriously, but in truth, thinks that the best of these [writings] serve as an aid to memory and who thinks that only in words about justice and beauty and goodness spoken by teachers for the sake of instruction and really written in a soul is clearness and perfection and of serious value, that such words should be considered the speaker's own legitimate offspring, first the word within himself, if it be found there, and secondly its descendants or brothers which may have sprung up in worthy manner in the souls of others, and who pays no attention to the other words,--that man, Phaedrus, is likely to be such as you and I might pray that we ourselves may become. . . If [anyonone] has composed his writings with knowledge of the truth, and is able to support them by discussion of that which he has written, and has the power to show by his own speech that the written words are of little worth, such a man ought not to derive his title from such writings, but from the serious pursuit which underlies them.

That last makes one think twice about the how precise one can really be in quoting John 1:1 and leaving out the fact that the Word John is talking about became flesh.
23 posted on 05/14/2006 3:48:27 PM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!
Tom Wolfe is on Book TV (C-Span) at this moment.

I stand firmly behind the thought that his work would take a great step forward by his becoming a regular FReeper.

A writer's work becomes stale without attack...and FR if full of attack.

This is the new paradigm.

Writers in isolation...that is part of the old paradigm.

24 posted on 05/14/2006 4:12:17 PM PDT by Dark Skies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Capturing control over language, especially the language
of morality, opens the doors to psychological control of
the masses.

"Most people will reject ideas and
institutions if they become convinced of their basic
immorality; most people, too, lack the kind of training
that will equip them to untangle the thicket of logical
fallacies that might be involved," writes Yates.

Having assumed control of the language of morality,
especially in institutions such as the media and academia,
the way is now clear for the Gramscian transformation of
society.

Yates points out that political correctness is the primary
weapon in the war against those values. Academic schools
of radical feminism, "critical race theory," gay and
lesbian "queer theory," the preoccupation with "diversity"
as an end in itself and all other forms of PC are direct
descendent's of Gramsci - they are the chief arm of
enforcement of the Gramscian transformation of American
society.

For all the attacks on the culture and beliefs of the GOD
of Abraham the end result is that the power hungry wish
to replace the church and GOD with themselves.
Of these things GOD gives us free will.....

The Marxist dictators / gods (Little g) will NOT.
25 posted on 05/14/2006 4:14:44 PM PDT by DaveTesla (You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Tom Wolfe didn't like paragraphs much, did he?

FMCDH(BITS)

26 posted on 05/14/2006 4:16:46 PM PDT by nothingnew (I fear for my Republic due to marxist influence in our government. Open eyes/see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tom D.
Wow. Wolfe is similar to Steyn, except that he goes into more detail and he goes deeper.

An odd hypothesis, neo-Lamarckian, which is sure to be controversial.

The characterization of our species as Homo loquax, Talking Man, is an interesting one too. Now we have become Homo nokia, Man Who Won't Shut Up.

27 posted on 05/14/2006 4:30:29 PM PDT by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

28 posted on 05/14/2006 4:32:24 PM PDT by BunnySlippers (We want our day: A day without hearing SPANISH ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlazingArizona

Homo loquacious.....


29 posted on 05/14/2006 4:45:51 PM PDT by DaveTesla (You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Dark Skies
FR is full of attack. True. It's full of one sentence sniping, pedestrianism, conventional wisdom (that's J.K. Galbraith's phrase, amazingly enough.) Tom Wolfe would be driven to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge if he read the Da Vinci Code threads. No, FR is a laboratory illustrating some of Tom Wolfe's points in the essay.

The old paradigm is thinkers debating ideas on the pages of well read journals and magazines. The new paradigm is idiots writing letters to the editor which then get printed by idiots with J-school education. Sorry to be so harsh, but having witnessed the recent debates here on historical ideas (Da Vinci Code again) I just don't see it.

30 posted on 05/14/2006 6:07:10 PM PDT by Revolting cat! ("In the end, nothing explains anything.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!; Jim Robinson
FR is full of attack. True. It's full of one sentence sniping, pedestrianism, conventional wisdom (that's J.K. Galbraith's phrase, amazingly enough.) Tom Wolfe would be driven to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge if he read the Da Vinci Code threads. No, FR is a laboratory illustrating some of Tom Wolfe's points in the essay.

The old paradigm is thinkers debating ideas on the pages of well read journals and magazines. The new paradigm is idiots writing letters to the editor which then get printed by idiots with J-school education. Sorry to be so harsh, but having witnessed the recent debates here on historical ideas (Da Vinci Code again) I just don't see it.

I probably haven't thought long enough before responding to your post, but I must defy the convention and at least applaud your courage...you are one of the leaders of the unconventional opinion. There is no doubt that the lack of accountability makes for a rude venue...but the cream of ideas and dialogue still rise to the top. And the trash sinks to the bottom of the heap.

The debates are certainly insane here. It is a raw journal of the jungle of ideas.

But as disgusting as it is...it is the "cinema verite" of our time.

Can it be so bad? Genius mets idiocy...and is humiliated...but still alive!

FR is the Hyde Park Corner of the electric world. Freedom of speech has never had such immediate power.

Don't give up! You are one of the reasons that reason will defeat insanity.

Here the pain is felt in the ego. Courage and wisdom is always greater than ego...when ego is dead, they will remain.

IMHO

Sorry for such a silly response but I am watching "Braveheart" on TV and it always makes me voluble and, well, Scottish.

31 posted on 05/14/2006 6:32:04 PM PDT by Dark Skies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Dark Skies
No, no, not a silly response (and I've downed a few myself this evening.) I'm just a bit depressed over those Da Vinci Code threads and the responses I read on the WSJ site (opinionjournal.com) to a great Tom Wolfe interview published 2-3 weeks ago on a Saturday (I'm not sure if it's still there, but it's worth looking up.)

One of the great quotes from that interview, which I'm paraphrasing here, was Wolfe quoting Hegel, I think, saying that "one can't rise above the moral tone of the times." That one had me thinking for the following week, and then someone, who also read the interview used it as an excuse for their (I don't want to say "her" or "his, so let it be the ungrammatical "their") nasty behaviour. But one must try anyway, and Wolfe certainly does. This carries a price, needless to say, you are a snob and elitist, and get depressed seeing yourself surrounded by consumers of trash, with whom you're unable to communicate. ("Oh, it lonely at the top", sang Randy Newman.)

As for Tom Wolfe lacking heart, I agree, but that's what we have to settle for on this side of the intellectual spectrum. It occured to me that Wolfe was in a way forced into writing fiction, since his New Journalism non-fiction didn't take off, or rather, was hijacked by the likes of Hunter Thompson with their agendas and ideologies. Wolfe was, when he and Terry Southern invented New Journalism back in the early 60s, a participating observer, a heartless sceptic, if you will, a classic journalist with no agenda whatsoever. I used to know one like him, no new journalist, older than Wolfe, well known in his time, drank himself to death.

32 posted on 05/14/2006 6:55:03 PM PDT by Revolting cat! ("In the end, nothing explains anything.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
I had arrived believing that, for example, Mexicans who had gone to the trouble of coming to the United States legally, going through all the prescribed steps, would resent the fact that millions of Mexicans were now coming into the United States illegally across the desert border. I couldn't have been more mistaken. I discovered that everyone who thought of himself as Latin, even people who had been in this country for two and three generations, were wholeheartedly in favor of immediate amnesty and immediate citizenship for all Mexicans who happened now to be in the United States. And this feeling had nothing to do with immigration policy itself, nothing to do with law, nothing to do with politics, for that matter. To them, this was not a debate about immigration. The very existence of the debate itself was to them a besmirching of their fiction-absolute, of their conception of themselves as Latins. Somehow the debate, simply as a debate, cast an aspersion upon all Latins, implying doubt about their fitness to be within the border of such a superior nation.

Bush/Rove are nuts if they think amnesty will create a republican majority among hispanics.

Hispanics will prove quite receptive to the poisonous racist demagoguery that is the special gift of the democRat party. Republicans will never get more than 35-40% of that vote at best.

33 posted on 05/14/2006 6:57:20 PM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!
one can't rise above the moral tone of the times

He was pushing this idea in his speech at Duke (on BookTV). What is it supposed to mean? If it means "you can't be human without living in a body" that's a rather mundane observance. Perhaps Hegel and Wolfe are trying to be profound about a world where exits are useless.

34 posted on 05/14/2006 7:07:33 PM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!

Great response...too much input. Will spend tomorrow trying to respond.

Your electric friend (not imaginary, just electric)...

DS


35 posted on 05/14/2006 7:09:53 PM PDT by Dark Skies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: cornelis

What does it mean? It means, as I interpret it, and as my acquaintance I referred to earlier did, that you can't help but in one way or another participate in the trends and fashions of the day and act out the ideologies of the day. You can't escape it, and even if you choose to escape to Nepal and become a Buddhist monk, as Jean-François Revel's scientist son did, well, you're are still following a trend. While it's possible, nobody wants to be an outsider.


36 posted on 05/14/2006 7:16:13 PM PDT by Revolting cat! ("In the end, nothing explains anything.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

BBBT!


37 posted on 05/14/2006 7:20:06 PM PDT by DCPatriot ("It aint what you don't know that kills you. It's what you know that aint so" Theodore Sturgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dark Skies

OK, well, let's keep this thread going, but you see, it ain't easy (and my rule is to stay under 10% of thread posts, but I do break it occasionally.)


38 posted on 05/14/2006 7:20:16 PM PDT by Revolting cat! ("In the end, nothing explains anything.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!

Well, does it means that if I have to use English to disagree with it, critique it, does that doom me? I'm not sure how this found its way to your admiration. Are we supposed to dislike the fact that we live in time?


39 posted on 05/14/2006 7:30:11 PM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
Are we supposed to dislike the fact that we live in time?

Perhaps. If we don't like the time we live in, then yes. Otherwise, it means to be aware of it. And mostly we aren't. Example: the racial obsession in this country. I don't know about you, but I refuse to participate in it, and have on these pages actively mocked it. Paul Weyrich, I think it was, once called on the Christians in America to totally withdraw from the dominant culture.

(I don't quite get your reference to using English. It doesn't get as fundamental as the language we use to communicate.)

40 posted on 05/14/2006 7:38:52 PM PDT by Revolting cat! ("In the end, nothing explains anything.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!
It doesn't get as fundamental as the language we use to communicate

Au contraire, mon ami. The sonofabitch is calling us homo loquax.

41 posted on 05/14/2006 7:56:18 PM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
You're right about Wolfe's point in the article, but if we talk about the "moral tone of the time", which is what I thought we were talking about, the language we use didn't come into the equation. Otherwise, we're into Chomskims and such, and I'm not really qualified to go there. Semiotics, or as my prof, a semiotician himself at the time, called it, 'semi-idiotics'?

"Moral tone of the times" is the difference between our approach to life in America, in all that it suggests, today and those that preceeded us in, say, 1956. Sex relations, race relations, employer - employee relations, everything else.

42 posted on 05/14/2006 8:06:09 PM PDT by Revolting cat! ("In the end, nothing explains anything.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Book One, first verse, of the Book of John in the New Testament says cryptically: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This has baffled Biblical scholars, but I interpret it as follows: Until there was speech, the human beast could have no religion, and consequently no God. In the beginning was the Word. Speech gave the beast its first ability to ask questions, and undoubtedly one of the first expressed his sudden but insatiable anxiety as to how he got here and what this agonizing struggle called life is all about. To this day, the beast needs, can't live without, some explanation as the basis of whatever status he may think he possesses. For that reason, extraordinary individuals have been able to change history with their words alone, without the assistance of followers, money, or politicians.

Wolfe does not credit him in this particular lecture but the Weber who so influenced young Wolfe was, of course, only building upon the insights offered by Nietzsche. Culture is a construct created by the myth-making "charismatic" individual, a Moses, a Jesus, a Mohammed, or so we were taught by Nietzsche (and to Moses et al we can add "Marx" and "Darwin" and "fill in the blank"). Ordinary people operate within, and seek the status defined by, the cultures created by the exceptional culture-creating people. Now the latest wrinkle is that culture-creation is only made possible by speech, and that the rules of culture creation take us above and beyond the simplistic animalistic natural selection theories offered by the Darwinists -- So what?

The "longing for status" that fascinated Weber and later Wolfe is in essence the same "longing for gods" that Nietsche described. As the Word reveals, man without God is idolatrous, and selfish pride (HipHoppers, Good Ole Boys, Fighter Pilots, Society or any other "status group") is no less a form of idolatry than worshipping a golden calf or a false prophet or History with a capital "H" (Marx). And Wolfe undoubtedly must realize that Epictetus and the Stoics are no exception to the rule (reference is to "A Man in Full").

And what if John really did have a revelation from God? And what if Calvin really did have a correct understanding of that revelation? Where does that leave Nietzsche, Weber and Wolfe?

43 posted on 05/14/2006 8:26:37 PM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirJohnBarleycorn
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 1-14.
The word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.We
have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only who
came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John was speaking about Jesus.

Jesus was and is the word.

As for the rest they are just using their "intellectualism"
to prop themselves up as gods and saviors. Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche,Antonio Gramsci, Stalin etc...
Have contributed nothing less than the death of 100's of
millions in the last century.

Romans 1.21
For although they knew God, they neither
glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their
thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were
darkened.
Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images
made to look like mortal man and birds and
animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of
their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their
bodies with one another.
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped
the creature rather than the Creator who is forever
praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.
Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.
Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to
retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
They have become filled with every kind of wickedness,
evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder,
strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,slanderers,
God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent
ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are
senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they
know God's righteous decree that those who do such things
deserve death, they not only continue to do these very
things but also approve of those who practice them.
44 posted on 05/14/2006 9:34:26 PM PDT by DaveTesla (You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

Comment #45 Removed by Moderator

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson