The Interdisciplinary Resource  
  Subscribe
Login
 
 
     
Search  
Sort by:
Results Listed:
Date Range:
  Advanced Search
 
The World & I eLibrary

Teacher's Corner

World Gallery

Global Culture Studies (at homepage)

 
 
Social Studies

Language Arts

Science


The Arts

Spanish
 
 
Crossword Puzzle
 
 
American Indian Heritage
American Waves
Biographies
Ceremonies/Festivities
Diversity in America
Eye on the High Court
Fathers of Faith
Footsteps of Lincoln
Genes & Biotechnology
Impacts
Media in Review
Millennial Moments
Peoples of the World
Poetry
Point/Counterpoint
Profiles in Character
Science and Spirituality
Shedding Light on Islam
Speech & Debate
The Civil War
The U.S. Constitution
Traveling the Globe
Worldwide Folktales
World of Nature
Writers & Writing

 

The Wilsonian Legacy


Article # : 15784 

Section : BOOK WORLD
Issue Date : 1 / 1989  2,151 Words
Author : Paul Gottfried

       THE PRESENT AGE
       Progress and Anarchy in Modern America
       Robert Nisbet
       Harper and Row, 1988
       145 + xii pp., $15.95
       
        There are two ways to read Robert Nisbet's recent book, The Present Age: Progress and Anarchy in Modern America as a medley of occasional essays by a distinguished social theorist and as a sustained argument against modern America, particularly its political life. The book recapitulates Nisbet's concerns from previous decades expressed in works going back to The Quest for Community in 1952. Once again he speaks of the threat to established community from economic modernization and centralized administration, the attack on standards and symbols of authority by the bureaucratic national state, and the supplanting of traditional belief systems by collectivist ideologies.
       
        In none of these concerns is Nisbet unique. He is by self-declaration a social traditionalist--albeit a religious freethinker like David Hume, whose combination of philosophical skepticism and social conservatism he deeply admires. Nisbet is, moreover, a traditionalist who makes copious references to those, living and dead, from whom he draws insights and to whom he feels in some ways akin. Though his arguments often parallel the views of Michael Oakeshott (whom he quotes in earlier works) about rationalism in politics, one difference between the two thinkers is stylistic. Oakeshott writes cryptically in what seem extended soliloquies; Nisbet, by contrast, offers painless, accessible prose full of tributes to his teachers and comrades-in-arms.
       
        He also sprinkles his writings and speeches with striking quotations and dramatic images. In The Present Age he begins by telling us how the framers might have regarded America two hundred years later. Once they "had recovered from the shock of seeing clean, strong, white teeth instead of decayed yellow stumps in the mouths of their descendants" and "had assimilated the fact of the astounding number of Americans who were neither crippled, disease-wasted, nor pockmarked from smallpox," they would have taken alarm at three less fortunate developments: "the prominence of war in American life since 1914, amounting to a virtual Seventy-Five Years War"; "the Leviathan-like presence of the national government in the affairs of states, town, and cities, and in the lives, cradle to grave, of individuals"; and "the number of Americans who seem only loosely attached to groups and values such as kinship, community, and property." By evoking this scene in which eighteenth-century lawgivers are allowed to observe the effects of modern hygiene as well as government, Nisbet underscores with artistic touch the distinctiveness of Western, particularly American, society since 1914.
       
        All the sections of his book deal with this distinctiveness, though not with equal rigor. In the second section, "The New Absolutism," otherwise penetrating statements about political centralization in America are weakened by expressions of pique against Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Nisbet also goes to excess in presenting a wise, prudent Churchill (who is shown as fully foreseeing Stalin's treachery at the end of World War II) as a foil for a woolly FDR. Nor do the arguments gain plausibility from parenthetic, emotionally charged references to current events in America, such as the fate of Robert Bork as a Supreme Court
... Read Full Article
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2008 The World & I Online. All rights reserved.