Against the American Grain (A Da Capo paperback)

Rating:
Summary: Cultural Commentary from a Proud Elitist
Review: "Against the American Grain" is a collection of essays and critical reviews that Macdonald wrote between 1952 and 1962. The pieces cover a wide variety of topics, ranging from appraisals of the works of Twain, Joyce, and Hemingway, through the rewriting of the Bible, to the decline and fall of the English language. One theme, however, is paramount throughout: the influence of Mass Culture on High Culture. Although Macdonald sees this conflict stretching back for two centuries, it greatly intensified during the 1950s. (One can only imagine how he would perceive the situation today.) No longer were art and thought the exclusive province of an educated minority. As the masses became more and more educated, prosperous, and politically aware, they also became increasingly involved with the cultural scene. That, unfortunately, resulted in a vulgarization of the traditional (high) culture.

The Mass Culture ("Masscult" is his term) is not really culture at all. It is a parody of High Culture, a commodity created especially for the marketplace. It is not simply unsuccessful or bad art. Rather, it is non-art, even anti-art. Masscult offers its customers "neither an emotional catharsis nor an aesthetic experience." It asks nothing of its audience and it gives nothing to them. Its goal is not even entertainment, but merely distraction.

Macdonald draws his distinctions between High Culture and Masscult along subtle, yet easily understood lines. The works of James Joyce, for instance, were High Culture; the works of James Michener, Masscult. Chaplin and Welles were proprietors of High Culture; Wyler and DeMille were Lords of Kitsch. Picasso, as opposed to Norman Rockwell. Early-Hemingway versus Late-Hemingway. Rogers and Hart versus Rogers and Hammerstein. Stravinski versus Elvis. Masscult is impersonal and ignorant of standards, "totally subjected to the spectator." High culture is "an expression of feelings, ideals, tastes, visions that are idiosyncratic and the audience similarly responds to them as individuals." High culture is the expression of a singular, unique vision; the creation of an artist.

Since this conflict between High Culture and Masscult had been in existence for over two hundred years, why did it become a pressing issue during the Fifties? Macdonald sees this time as a period of increasing sophistication. "The West has been won, the immigrants melted down, the factories and railroads built to such effect that...the problem has [become one of] consumption rather than production." The work week had shrunk, real wages had risen, college enrollment had skyrocketed, and the country was enjoying an unprecedented standard of living. Money, leisure, and knowledge-"the prerequisites for culture"-were more abundant and widespread than ever before. Consequently, the average person (Ortega y Gasset's "mass man") had the ability and the inclination to partake of culture. Unfortunately, the traditional High Culture, the avant-garde, was beyond both the ken and the taste of the mass man. He turned instead to something that was more palatable and easily digestible, something that he could appreciate, and even understand, with a minimum of exertion: Masscult. This rise of the mass man coincided with the rise of television (the altar of Masscult), the spread of the inexpensive, quality paperback book, and the long-playing record, all of which slaved to bring Masscult to a vast audience thirsting for kitsch.

Macdonald believes the solution to the problem of the spread of Masscult is an attempt to define two cultures, one for the masses and one for the classes. (By "classes" he means not a social or economic elite, but an intellectual one.) He believes that there already exists a dichotomy between two cultures and it is in our interest to keep them separate. There cannot be a broadly democratic culture on a high level, not because the elite forcibly exclude the masses, but rather the great majority of people have never cared enough about such things to make them an important part of their lives. That is as it should be. "Let the masses have their Masscult [and] let the few who care about good writing, painting, music, architecture, philosophy, etc., have their High Culture." A truly elegant, if arrogant, solution.

Rating:
Summary: A brilliant, witty collection that demands reisuue.
Review: There's not much I can add to David Montgomery's review -- an excellent one -- about the intellectual assumptions and findings of this book. Macdonald is an elitist, and if that bothers you, then you might as well pass on this collection. What I think David Montgomery failed to mention, however, is Macdonald's superlative style. He's the most entertaining of the 'New York Intellectuals' -- more fun than Irving Howe, less stuffy than Philip Rahv, less egotistical than Mary McCarthy. (A good indication of Macdonald's openness to the opinions of others is his printing of George Plimpton's dissent on Hemingway.) I suppose the tension between High Culture and Masscult, which so occupies Macdonald in these pages, is still apparent today, although I think he might argue that Masscult has completely overrun High Culture; but what makes these essays appealing now, forty years after some of them appeared, is the felicity of Macdonald's style and the fecundity of his wit. A collection of Macdonald's best essays, put together by a sympathetic editor, might help restore his fading reputation.