Jason Jewell has supplemented his previous list of “100 titles from various narrative genres” with a new list of 50 “non-narrative works.” He invites me to “take some more potshots”; I can hardly refuse such an invitation!
My principal potshot: why does he call this a list of non-narrative works? It includes Plato’s narrative of Socrates’ last days, as well as historical narratives by Herodotus, Thucydides, Julius Caesar, Edward Gibbon, Shelby Foote, and others. (You might think maybe he means non-fiction works, but the original list was filled with biographies and autobiographies, so that wouldn’t make the relevant contrast either.)
A few more gripes (apart from my standing gripe about the shortchanging of non-DWEM works):
- Jason describes Hegel’s Philosophy of Right as “history proceeding through dialectic” – but although Hegel has plenty to say about history in other works, there’s in fact relatively little about history in Philosophy of Right. (It’s also a bit of an oversimplification to call Marxism “a materialistic version of Hegel’s philosophy”; the disagreements between Marx and Hegel stretch farther than just materialism versus idealism. For example, Hegel was a defender of private property and the state; Marx, not so much.)
- I don’t think Horace “invented the genre of satire”; in what genre was, e.g., Aristophanes working?
- Jason contrasts the “Aristotelian geocentric model” with the “Platonic heliocentric model.” Both Plato and Aristotle were geocentrists.
- I find it hard to believe that Castiglione’s The Courtier (which advises rulers to “reduce to bondage those who are by nature such as to deserve being made slaves”) has “defined what it is to be a ‘lady’ or a ‘gentleman’ for the last 500 years.”
As with the previous lists, though, all the books on it are worth reading. Go read them now. Yes, right now.
Thank you, I had hoped you would another critic. But something would interest me: What would your list of ten essential philosophy works look like?
I, too, am interested in what your list of essential philosophy works would look like.
It’s funny; I was just reading about the “dead white male” criticism of Great Books of the Western World. My reaction to it was something like: “Typical progressive nonsense. What would you expect from a collection going back 3,000 years?”
But I understand Roderick mentioned some legitimately good non-DWEM works – no affirmative action required.
Well the non-DWEMs go back 3,000 years too ….
In the West? Can you point me in the right direction? Unlike some, I don’t actually *prefer* DWEM domination.
How about Confucius? Dead, male, but not white, and certainly no affirmative action required.
I think Roderick (Dr. Long?) wrote a paper about Confucius and libertarianism.
Confucius is great, but I wouldn’t put him in the West. Sorry if I wasn’t clear, but I was only talking about the criticism of Great Books of the *Western* World.
I wouldn’t want anyone to get the impression that there haven’t been any excellent non-DWEM works in the last 3,000 years. But for progressives to complain about GBWW consisting mostly of works by DWEMs is, I think, silly.
I could certainly be wrong, and I’m not saying it’s fair, or that entirely peaceful, libertarian phenomena are responsible for that, but let’s not deny the reality – historically, the West has been dominated by WEMs. If a collection of the best Western works of the past doesn’t have many non-DWEMs, it shouldn’t be surprising or taken as a knock on anyone else.
Well, here’s a quick list off the top of my head of a bunch of classic authors in the Western canon, prior to the 20th century, who were either female or of non-European descent:
The author(s) of Gilgamesh
The authors of the Hebrew Bible
Sappho
Apuleius
Arius
Augustine
Marie De France
Julian of Norwich
Margery Kempe
Marguerite de Navarre
Christine de Pizan
Marie de LaFayette
Aphra Behn
Émilie du Châtelet
Hannah More
Germaine de Staël
Mary Wollstonecraft
Ann Radcliffe
Jane Austen
Emily Brontë
Charlotte Brontë
Mercy Otis Warren
Mary Shelley
Christina Rossetti
George Sand
Emily Dickinson
Elizabeth Gaskell
Frederick Douglass
Charlotte Perkins Gilman
Mary Baker Eddy
Harriet Taylor Mill
Harriet Martineau
Louisa May Alcott
Alexandre Dumas
Harriet Beecher Stowe
George Eliot
Excellent. Thanks for taking the time to make this list.
I do believe my point still stands, however. If a list of the greatest works of the West included all of these, it would probably also have to include more DWEMs than non-DWEMs, and that shouldn’t be surprising or considered wrong.
To give an extreme example, if the guards at a prison labor camp happen to create many paintings, and the inmates cannot, then of course an XYZ Prison Art Collection will favor the work of the guards. The crime here is not in the selection of the work for the collection, but in whatever aggression was committed which led to the inmates not being able to paint as much.
I hope I made some sense.
To add to this, this is one of the reasons the statist progressive criticism bothers me.
To expect a “Best of the West” collection to be, say, 50% non-DWEM is to deny the massive obstacles (racism, sexism, economic obstacles, etc.) non-DWEMs faced, especially in the past.
Either that or it is a shameless attempt to deny the truth in favor of the *appearance* of equality.
I believe the latter is what actually tends to motivate the criticism from statist progressives, and any assault on truth is worth defending against.
Sorry for the third consecutive post, but I wanted to clarify that the criticism I’m referring to is *not* Roderick’s.
…or of anyone else’s here!
To expect a “Best of the West” collection to be, say, 50% non-DWEM
That seems right. BUT — I’m not sure who you think is putting forward this demand. I haven’t seen very many people demand that the “best of the west” be 50% non-DWEM. What they’re more likely to demand is either a) that the percentage of non-DWEMS covered be higher than it has traditionally been, and/or b) that something other than the “best of the west” be the exclusive focus.
I’m sure you’re right; not many people would explicitly state a number like some AA quota. But if anyone complains that a collection is “mostly” DWEM (as if that is a crime in and of itself), then of course the only way to immunize yourself against that would be to make the collection at least 50% non-DWEM. The problem is the focus on race, sex, etc. over quality.
To your point a), I can certainly understand that. If the complaint is that non-DWEMs are being ignored or passed over unnecessarily because of cultural conservatism or habit or whatever else (I think this is what you were getting at), then of course that should be rectified.
As for b), again, no objection.
Here’s an article about Mortimer J. Adler, who chose the Great Books: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_32_17/ai_77812349/
(BTW, there’s plenty of irony there. A defender of the classics, praised by conservatives, but also a socialist in favor of world government. A left-wing statist, but also a dropout who was against the pro-school progressive mentality.)
Anyway, from the article: “Harvard University’s Henry Louis Gates blasted the Great Books for showing ‘profound disrespect for the intellectual capacities of people of color — red, brown or yellow.'”
Going back to my prison example, again, this is like blaming the person making the selection for the crimes of the guards. If someone is prevented from eating properly, of course they’re not going to be able to accomplish as much. Why imply that it shouldn’t affect them at all, holding them to an impossibly high standard, instead of acknowledging that whoever stopped them from eating committed a damaging crime against them?
This is actually meant to be a reply to Robert Paul’s post beginning “I’m sure you’re right,” but after a certain number of iterations the software won’t allow another subpost.
Re Adler: but the problem is that, as I understand it, the “Great Books” series wasn’t supposed to be just the Western canon, it was supposed to be great books of the world. And in that case non-western sources are certainly grossly underrepresented.
Re Adler: but the problem is that, as I understand it, the “Great Books” series wasn’t supposed to be just the Western canon, it was supposed to be great books of the world. And in that case non-western sources are certainly grossly underrepresented.
The Great Books did start out as a West-only list, and it’s unclear to me if that was ever supposed to change. But, either way, the Great Books of the Western World collection was of course meant to present only the Western canon, and I believe the article makes it clear that Henry Louis Gates was referring to this collection.
But I do agree with you; if the Great Books list was meant to represent the entire world, it did not do a good job of it. After looking into it, it seems to me that Adler himself had a strong preference for the West, but the Great Books Foundation is now more open to non-Western works. I should have been clearer about the distinction between the Great Books list and the GBWW collection.
OK, but that take me to my (b) above — namely, Eurocentric bias was very likely involved in the decision to make it a “Great Books of the Western World” series in the first place.
In other words: when the Tennis Club is accused of discriminating against nonwhite aspirants to membership, it’s an odd defense for them to say “Oh, but the full name of our organisation is the Whites-Only Tennis Club, so having black members was never an option anyway.”
In any case, the western-ness of the list doesn’t explain the paucity of female authors.
OK, but that take me to my (b) above — namely, Eurocentric bias was very likely involved in the decision to make it a “Great Books of the Western World” series in the first place.
In other words: when the Tennis Club is accused of discriminating against nonwhite aspirants to membership, it’s an odd defense for them to say “Oh, but the full name of our organisation is the Whites-Only Tennis Club, so having black members was never an option anyway.”
Sure, I agree. But it is a valid defense to that particular charge. That is, it would be an odd and invalid complaint to say, “Oh, I understand it’s the Whites-Only Tennis Club. That’s fine, but you should retroactively include some black members in your Hall of Fame for the sake of equality.”
It makes more sense to say, “Of course there aren’t any black hall-of-famers or members. From the club’s inception, you didn’t allow nonwhites to join! That can’t be construed as evidence that nonwhites are inferior in any way. You should, at least going forward, run a tennis club that is open to people of all races and does not discriminate on the basis of race.”
In any case, the western-ness of the list doesn’t explain the paucity of female authors.
To the extent that female authors are being passed over because of cultural conservatism or other silly reasons, sure. But it is explained, to some extent, by the extreme sexism of the past and its consequences. So, yes, I can certainly believe that female authors are underrepresented in today’s lists, but for someone to expect more female authors to be selected simply to give the impression of equality in the past is unreasonable.
In any case, the western-ness of the list doesn’t explain the paucity of female authors.
It doesn’t really explain the paucity of black or other non-white authors, either. I hear there’s a lot of black people in America.
Robert Paul:
Could you help me out with a concrete example here? I mean, some specific work that you think oughtn’t be included on such lists, that does get included (or suggested for inclusion by Leftist canon critics) because of a focus on race, sex, etc. over quality? Or a work that ought, on the basis of quality, to be included, that isn’t included because of a focus on race, sex, etc. over quality? I hear this kind of complaint all the time, but the complaint is usually pretty thin on concrete demonstrations of the alleged problem.
Because if the answer is going to be something like Their Eyes Were Watching God or Nervous Conditions or Things Fall Apart, then my reply would be simply be that, y’know, those are actually some pretty good books.
It doesn’t really explain the paucity of black or other non-white authors, either. I hear there’s a lot of black people in America.
But Charles, we’re talking about the West going back 3,000 years, not just America in the last few centuries.
Could you help me out with a concrete example here?…I hear this kind of complaint all the time, but the complaint is usually pretty thin on concrete demonstrations of the alleged problem.
In this case, the alleged problem is the left-wing statist criticism that the lists are “mostly” DWEM. As I said, I agree with Roderick’s points a) and b) above, so I’m not at all saying that there are too many non-DWEM works included today. My problem with the criticism (not the list) is that, instead of focusing on the quality of specific works as you are suggesting, the focus is on some sort of equitable proportional representation by race and sex. (Of course, I’m not saying all left-wing statists are guilty of this.) I’m not sure if you read my later comments, but as I explained above, I believe that approach is flawed and that there is a proper leftist explanation for the large number of DWEM works in a “best of the west” list.
Me:
Robert Paul:
Yeah, but in fact such lists, while containing a smattering of titles that go back that far, and that get as far out as the outer boundaries of “the West” (which apparently, given the ideological slight-of-hand that goes into defining that peripatetic bit of real estate, get out towards Iraq, except not when there are Muslims there). But in reality they tend to be slanted very heavily towards the last 400 or 500 years of literature (Great Books of the Western World samples heavily from the Hellenes, tosses in a couple of Helenistic writers and a couple of Roman writers for good measure, and then traverses almost 1,000 years of history between Volume 16 and Volume 19 with only four authors covered — Augustine, Aquinas, Dante and Chaucer — so that the next 40 volumes, out of a total of 60, can be spent on covering the most recent 500 years.) Given the typically expansive coverage of modern authors, and given the typical tilt of such lists (when prepared by English-speakers) towards works in English, I think the argument that black American, or other non-white authors, simply got crowded out by all the historical and geographical expanse is correspondingly a lot weaker. If you have 40 very large volumes’ worth of space to devote to the last 500 years, and more than half of that specifically devoted to English-speaking authors, I would be very surprised if a selection based on quality or influence, did not make at least some room for some of the excellent black American authors who have written in that stretch of time and space (or Latin American authors, for that matter, or any number of other Westerners who seem to be typically missing from this kind of list).
Well, maybe; that’s one way of looking at it. But I think a more charitable way of understanding the criticism (and one which happens to line up better with what radical literary critics have usually said, when I’ve encountered them) is not that they’re after some kind of statistical proportion between the authors on the list and the demographics of the general populace, but rather that they have many specific very good authors in mind, who typically don’t show up, and who the critic thinks are being excluded, in spite of the quality of their work, because the compilers of the list are blanking out large demographic groups. (Presumably that’s usually because of ignorance or indifference on the part of the critics, rather than conspiratorial bigotry; they don’t include works that they aren’t aware of or don’t care about. But what the compilers of such lists tend to make themselves aware of, and to care about, is not innocent of American racial or sexual or national politics. It may well be true that Zora Neale Hurston hasn’t had much effect on Mortimer J. Adler’s life; but the question is whether that’s because of her qualities as an author, or because of the kind of life he has led.)
On this reading of the complaint, the idea is not to force some kind of purely demographic proportion, but rather to criticize the ignorance or willing blindness which the disproportions are a symptom of.
Of course, I’m talking about serious literary critics here, not necessarily about (for example) school curriculum committees. I’m sure there are lots of those that threw Chinua Achebe onto the reading list solely in order to avoid complaints from black or white Leftist parents, without the administrators having bothered to give much a damn about how good his books are.
For some reason, some of the comments are out of order and detached from their threads. I don’t know where this one is going to end up, but the reply to Rad Geek I just posted was supposed to be near the bottom of the page.
Here’s a link to that comment: http://aaeblog.com/2009/04/20/kulcherel-littorasy-part-11-in-binary/comment-page-1/#comment-350267
On the DWEM phrase: to paraphrase Angelica Houston’s character in “Art School Confidential”, they weren’t dead yet when they wrote them. Perhaps out of respect for those past we can forgive a prejudice against the living?
I found the whole series to be nothing more than thinly veiled snobbery of cultural conservatism.
Any great books list that doesn’t contain HST or Kerouac…thanks but no thanks…
😉
OT: Your talk from the ASC this year was finally put online yesterday: http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/ASC2009/ASC09_Long.mp3
Transcript to follow?
“Mary Baker Eddy” Lol, you’re so CS.
I revere the Incarnate Eddyite Principle, Peace Be Upon Her Little Pink Toes. You gotta problem widdat?
Charles, if I understood your points correctly, both are examples of non-DWEMs “being ignored or passed over unnecessarily because of cultural conservatism or habit or whatever else,” which I agree is a legitimate problem. But I don’t think we’re talking about the same criticism which we’ve each understood differently; we’re talking about two different complaints entirely. They are different in much the same way “Mr. Jones is rich! Being rich is unacceptable!” is different from “Mr. Jones is rich thanks to the use of coercion. Coercion is unacceptable.”.