Four decades ago, Dwight Macdonald rued the impending triumph of “Midcult,” an “agreeable ooze” of denatured high culture produced for the college-educated. Curtis White’s The Middle Mind surpasses Macdonald’s work. Where Macdonald thought Midcult a merely insipid affair, White contends that the Middle Mind is ardently imperial in its militarization of irony and mediocrity. And if Macdonald longed for a new… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (4)Page 1 of 1 pagesborn-again modernism, but the book might have some references for us?
Posted by charles on Nov 10, 2003 at 11:37 PM born-again modernism, but the book might have some references for us?
Posted by juliana on Nov 10, 2003 at 11:38 PM A good example of this is the New York Timees radio station, WQXR.
Once the home of classical music, it has been dumbed down into a classical top-40’s venue. A policy of gently stroking the minds of a college grad audience without waking them up seems to be the formula.
Posted by Walter G on Nov 14, 2003 at 6:51 AM Sometimes I really think it’s impossible to write cultural criticism from within academia. You get so many bad samples. There’s a particular kind of stupidity that prevails not just among “the college-educated” or the “bobos” but among faculty and other producers of cultural criticism themselves: it isn’t particular to academia—so you can’t write a *thesis* about how it’s particular to academia, the academic impulse to write theses about observations or frustrations notwithstanding—but it’s certainly at home there. It sounds like this book encompasses one of these manias developed by a person who isn’t at home, for various reasons, within his own coterie, and has found a generally appealing way to say why that should be important to us all. I mean, who isn’t sick of upper-class liberal banality? But it’s the fact that it’s *banal* that is significant, not the particulars, except in the discussion of attitudes towards American imperialism, which sounds like it is probably well-taken. Banality has always, and always will, come in a multitude of shapes and forms. The only way to attack it is at the root, often with the language and methods of a field highly denatured and untimely in this age of biodeterminism and deconstruction: namely psychology. If you’re going to write a book about any kind of “mind,” that seems like a good place to start.
But hey, I’ve proven my implicit theory about doctrines and their limitations: now *I* want to write a book about some segment of American culture, a book the world would be much better without. Huzzah.
Posted by tamar on Nov 20, 2003 at 5:32 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Eugene McCarraher
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2003 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
