The search for a framework of literacy that can accommodate a broader sense of what it means be literate in American mass culture, recalls not only such imports as Huxley's, Horkheimer's, Adorno's, Ortega y Gasset's, and T. S. Eliot's elitist worries of 1930s that high culture was in jeopardy; that decade also saw great numbers of American advanced intellectuals as Philip Rahv called them (41), from all across political spectrum, struggling with problem that a twenty-nine-year-old Van Wyck Brooks had described as early as 1915. How could America reconcile division between what Brooks called (he actually coined terms) and create a cultural middle ground where the poetry of life should serve, in harnessing thought and action together, [to turn] life into a adventure (15)? For Brooks in 1915, such a disinterested adventure involved an individual expressing the better intuitions and of his age and place (18). This meant a close and well understood relationship between individual and some visible or invisible host about him, since mind is a flower that has an organic connection with soil from which it (18). By 1930s, as country reeled from cataclysmic war economic and technological boom deep depression, relationship between mind and soil from which it springs was not only infinitely more complex than even a thinker of Brooks's magnitude could fairly comprehend in 1915, but split between mind and world, along with various classes of society, seemed problematic at best, and perhaps unbridgeable at worst. For Brooks, solving political division between highbrow and lowbrow depended in large part on where highbrow intended position itself along a continuum of a number of key philosophical, aesthetic, and cultural issues: But certainly no true social revolution will ever be possible in America till a race of artists, profound and sincere, has brought us face face with our own experience and set working in that experience leaven of highest culture. For it is that give their validity revolutions, and take form only in souls. But has there ever been a time when masses of men have conceived these without leaders formulate them and press them home? (158-59) Himself a 1907 graduate of Harvard, such a position might be seen as coming naturally Brooks; but, as later thinkers were discover-from Frankfurt School of 1930s New York Intellectuals of 1950s New Left of 1960s-the American ethos does not take very kindly pronouncements of cultural mandarins. What Brooks described as an America of unconscious life, swept by ground-swells of half-conscious emotion and as a welter of life which has not been worked into an organism, into which values and standards of humane economy have not been introduced (78), could also be viewed as an America, at least by 1920s, so thoroughly steeped in guiding belief of consumer choice, that cultural strictures from above were likely be met-as they are today-with that deepest of fruitful American values, to each his own. In fact, as Richard Wightman Fox and T. J. Jackson Lears point out (1983), it was very exalted desires of exalted souls for a life of greater intensity and personal fulfillment that helped create therapeutic megastate that Henry Adams, Thorstein Veblen, and others foresaw with horror at turn of century. With emergence of a commercial broadcasting system (recently explored with great skill by Robert McChesney), greater mobility, and a greater percentage of individuals working in salaried jobs and professions, individual pursuit of pleasure and fulfillment assumed hegemonic proportions in Gramscian sense of term. It mattered little whether such private pursuits involved high culture or nickelodeons, since underlying cultural principles had shifted from sacrifice, externality, and transcendence, comfort, self-absorption, and social adjustment. …
Read full abstract