Thursday, August 25, 2005

John Carey: The Intellectuals and the Masses

A while back, someone wrote a comment on one of my posts in which he suggested that I should read John Carey’s book The Intellectuals and the Masses. And indeed it has proved to be a rewarding experience.

John Carey, by the way, was Merton Professor of English at Oxford until he retired in 2001, and he is still an emeritus Professor. The sub-title of his book is Pride and Prejudice among the Literary Intelligentsia, 1880-1939.

The book comes in two parts. The first part contains various ‘themes’ and the second offers case studies of several writers.

You don’t have to read very far in this book before you get a surprise. And the surprise is that an Oxford Professor really doesn’t have much time for the literary intelligentsia. Or at any rate, not the kind of people he writes about in this book. In fact I don’t think I’m reading too much into it when I say that he despises large numbers of them.

The general thesis of the book is that the (largely self-anointed) intellectual classes were deeply shaken by nineteenth-century social developments. I’m not sure that Carey mentions the French Revolution of 1789 (it isn’t in the short index), but I think we could argue that that event was deeply disturbing to all those in Europe who held positions of influence, power, and wealth.

What the French Revolution demonstrated was that you weren’t necessarily safe even if you were a King. You could still end up in prison, or worse, with your head chopped off.

As the nineteenth century moved on, the ruling classes (from whom intellectuals were exclusively drawn in those days) began to be aware that the masses (for want of a better term) were rapidly growing in power and influence. What was more, they were being taught to read! And this was deeply alarming. Who could say what ideas they might pick up? A revolution in France was bad enough – but what if it spread? A widespread and deep-seated fear of the masses began to percolate through the intelligentsia.

As far as literature is concerned, Carey argues that, in the face of this much enlarged reading public, the response of the intellectuals was to create new forms of work which were deliberately exclusive. The whole point (conscious or unconscious) of modernist literature was to exclude the ordinary people. It was to create a class of writers and readers who could feel comfortably superior to the masses, because only they – the new intelligentsia – were clever enough to understand the new literature. And how reassuring it was, how comforting, to be aware that there were still people like themselves – people who were so infinitely superior, in every way, to the great unwashed masses who revelled in sordid crime stories and slushy romances.

Ortega y Gasset, for example, in The Dehumanization of Art, argued that it was the essential function of modern art to divide the public into two classes – those who can understand it and those who cannot. The intellectuals could not prevent the masses from learning to read. But they could prevent them reading certain types of literature by making it too difficult; and this they did.

Without even trying very hard, Carey reveals to us that intellectuals such as Nietzsche and Ortega y Gasset were quite exceptionally nasty people. ‘I believe,’ said Nietzsche, ‘that the mob, the mass, the herd, will always be despicable.’ Which is plain enough. The immense popularity of Nietzsche’s ideas, Carey tells us, is indicative of the sheer panic that the threat of the masses induced.

It isn't long, of course, before that raving old madman F.R. Leavis appears on the scene. The mass media, he declared, arouse ‘the cheapest emotional responses. Films, newspapers, publicity in all forms, commercially-catered fiction – all offer satisfaction at the lowest level.’

You see how the thinking goes? I am not one of the masses. I am someone special. I am an intellectual – one of the elite. Therefore my emotional responses, obviously, are far more sensitive and subtle than those of my cleaning lady.

And where, I ask (though Carey doesn’t, explicitly), is the scientific evidence for such a belief? Who has done the research which demonstrates that a third-rate man like Leavis (or even a first-rate man) has more sensitive emotions than someone with an IQ of 75? Who has proved that the grief felt by a bereaved mother is more intense if she is Lady Hermione from the Manor than if she is Mrs Jones from no. 3 Railway Cuttings? Where is the machine which measures the intensity and 'quality' of emotions, as a sphygmomanometer measures blood pressure? There isn't one.

The fear of the masses also acted as the cover for an equally nasty attitude among the intelligentsia, and that was the fear of women. Popular newspapers were hated and despised because (no doubt in the interests of circulation, a sordid motive if ever there was one), they encouraged women to better themselves. Good God! Women will be demanding the vote next!

A whole array of intellectuals are revealed by Carey not merely to be snobs and fuzzy thinkers, but possessed of singularly unattractive opinions based on nothing more than prejudice, stupidity and fear for their cosseted life style. D.H. Lawrence, for example, wrote to Lady Cynthia Asquith from Ceylon , assuring her that the natives were ‘in the living sense lower than we are.’

That remark reminds me of a canard that I used to hear when I was a boy: black boxers, it was said, win more world championships than white boxers because ‘they don’t feel pain like we do.’ Neither this assertion nor Lawrence’s was based on anything that might even loosely be called reliable data. Idle gossip is more like it.

Incidentally, although I am no admirer of D.H. Lawrence, Carey succeeds in shocking me when he relates that some of the intelligentsia in the early twentieth century anticipated Hitler in favouring the extermination of the old, the sick, and the suffering. Lawrence was among them. ‘If I had my way,’ he said in a letter of 1908, ‘I would build a lethal chamber as big as the Crystal Palace.’

The literary intelligentsia, as noted above, created a class of literature which was impossible for the average reader to understand. But I doubt, personally, whether it ever provided much pleasure for the elite, except in so far as it allowed them to demonstrate, to their own satisfaction at least, that they were infinitely superior in every way to those ghastly oiks who favoured penny dreadfuls; or, later, Ian Fleming; or Dean Koontz; or anyone else who sells big but is despised by the literati. That, I suppose, is the price you have to pay for being allowed to feel superior; you don’t actually enjoy anything very much.

All these attitudes were reflected in what books got reviewed and in how they were reviewed (and they still are). Jerome K. Jerome’s Three Men in a Boat was roundly denounced for its vulgarity, and for being written in ‘colloquial clerk’s English.’

The principal aim of all this, says Carey, was ‘to acquire the control over the mass that language gives.’ After all, if the masses exercised power, they would probably start spreading out wealth more equally, and then where would we be? Democratic government, thought Thomas Hardy, would lead to ‘the utter ruin of art and literature.’

The masses were feared because it was thought that they would behave like crowds: i.e. they would be ‘extremely suggestible, impulsive, irrational, exaggeratedly emotional, inconstant, irritable and capable only of thinking in images – in short, just like women.’ The process of civilising women was, incidentally, considered by the intellectuals to be one of extreme difficulty.

Every development which favoured the middle or working classes in England was viewed with deep suspicion if not outright hostility. Suburban growth, with improved new housing, was decried for ruining the countryside. Cyril Connolly considered suburbs worse than slums.

Enough, I think to make the point. Carey succeeds, well beyond anything I had thought possible, in demonstrating that, in the period covered by his book, 1880-1939, English intellectuals (in particular) were an unpleasant, snobbish lot. Motivated by sheer funk – terrified that they might lose all their privileges, which in truth were seldom justified – they objected on the one hand to anything which might be called progress, while on the other hand they busily reinforced their own all too fallible self esteem through the creation of ‘superior art’ which the masses could not understand.

The trend continues to this day, as you have doubtless noticed.

After the general introduction of part one, part two of Carey’s book provides several case studies. He deals with George Gissing, H.G. Wells, Arnold Bennett, and Wyndham Lewis, particularly the latter’s connection with Hitler.

Gissing, though now forgotten, ‘was the earliest English writer to formulate the intellectuals’ case against mass culture, and he formulated it so thoroughly that nothing essential has been added to it since.’ Gissing, incidentally, was a charming fellow whose sexual appetites required women who were his intellectual and social inferior, and he could only get it up by humiliating and punishing them. He claimed to have beaten both his wives with stair rods.

H.G. Wells is remembered rather better than Gissing. I heard a rumour recently that someone had made a film based on one of his books. But his views are unattractive from our perspective. What will we do with the black and the brown races, he wondered, since they are so obviously inferior to us in intelligence and initiative, and there are so many of them. He became obsessed with reducing the world’s population.

Arnold Bennett is included by Carey because the author views him as a hero. ‘His writings represent a systematic dismemberment of the intellectuals’ case against the masses.’ But Bennett was, of course, despised by the intelligentsia because the bounder made money from literature. Only an utter cad would do that. He also wrote a book called The Truth about an Author, which I really must read.

Intellectuals, Bennett believed, should write so as to appeal to a wider audience, and he did not see why a book which the masses liked should automatically be thought of as trash. Between the popular and the highbrow reader there was, he argued, no essential difference. Neither is there: in fiction both seek emotion; in non-fiction both seek information.

Wyndham Lewis, it turns out, wrote several books in the 1930s, all of which were enthusiastic about the German Fuhrer, the charismatic Adolf. Contempt for women was perhaps the key to Lewis’s character. ‘Stay to dinner,’ he asked a friend. ‘I’ve a wife downstairs. A simple woman, but a good cook.’

I don’t think anyone is likely to reprint Wyndham Lewis any time soon. Whiteness, he suggested, ‘is in a pigmentary sense aristocratic’, and is the proper colour for a gentleman. As for his description of what he calls ‘the average Nigger’, I really don’t think I dare quote it, lest someone should mistake it for my own opinion.

As far as Hitler himself is concerned, Carey tells us that ‘the tragedy of Mein Kampf is that it was not, in many respects, a deviant work but one firmly rooted in European intellectual orthodoxy.’

Carey ends his survey at 1939, but he reminds us that the old intellectual prejudices have not died out yet. The ever-expanding mass media have ‘driven the intellectuals to evolve an anti-popular cultural mode that can reprocess all existing culture and take it out of the reach of the majority.’ This mode is variously called ‘post-structuralism’, or ‘deconstruction’, or just plain ‘theory’, and it began in the 1960s with the work of Jacques Derrida. It has managed, says Carey, to evolve a language that is impenetrable to most native English-speakers. You can say that again. Much of it is gibberish. The whole wretched business was exposed by Alan Sokal.

Carey has, in my view, summed up all the modern apparatus of criticism and reviewing very neatly. Every department of Literature in every university and college in the world takes the line that there is a form of ‘serious literary fiction’ which is inherently superior to popular or commercial fiction. But where, I ask, not for the first time, are the sound arguments and research data which demonstrate this truth?

I have been reading novels for at least 55 years, reading about novels for at least 50 years, and writing them for 45 years. If there was any such evidence I think I would have noticed it by now.

In fact, as I have argued many times before on this blog, there is no evidence for seeing the world of fiction as a hierarchy. According to the intelligentsia, the world of fiction is, so to speak, a tower block with ‘serious literary novels’ firmly ensconced in the penthouse. In the basement, needless to say, is romantic fiction, which is read only by those brainless women.

This tower-block, or hierarchical, view of fiction is, in my view, a product of male intellectuals. The tower block is a male erection; and, like all male erections, it is fundamentally ridiculous.

The only sensible way to view the world of fiction is as a street with many bookshops. Each of these bookshops stocks a different kind of fiction, and the sensible reader will visit all of them at one time or another. On this street there are no prime sites; all premises are of equal value.

The kindest thing that can be said about the intellectuals’ view of the world of fiction is that it is the product of fuzzy thinking. Unfortunately, as Professor Carey has demonstrated, there is a much darker side to this mode of thinking which, particularly in the 1930s, led to some very unpleasant and unwelcome consequences.

Professor Carey’s book on intellectuals and the masses is, in and of itself, a good argument for the existence of universities. Only an academic would have the time (and indeed the duty) to undertake the necessary reading and to think through the implications of the results. I doubt whether many of Professor Carey’s colleagues ever thanked him for this book; but the rest of us ought to be deeply grateful.


paulv said...

Whoah--scathing stuff, GOB. I found your post provocative, and in fact put my own thoughts on it in my post today, if you're interested.

Anonymous said...

Bravo, GOB! You have not lived in vain.

If the intellectual fascists ever take over the world, the bastards, you will be in the first tumbril, flanked by John Carey and Theodore Dalrymple. (The guillotine, if you are interested, will be sited at Marble Arch.)

I am too much of a coward to be with you. In fact, I will be in the front row, baying for your blood, just in case anyone might suspect . . . Sorry, but we can't all have balls.

A serious point to conclude. If you have been sufficiently interested to read this comment, then do yourself a favour, and read the front page again. It's worth it.

Peter L. Winkler said...

I find a great weakness in Carey's thesis is his ad hominem attack on certain writers. Lawrence, Wells, and Wyndham Lewis may have held views on sex, race, and class that we find politically incorrect today or anti-social. So what? That in no way impairs my reading of their fiction. Since I read for entertainment, not political education or moral uplift, I am not bothered by an author's views when they diverge from my own.

Also, Wells can hardly be said to have contributed to writing books that were abstruse or inaccessible. Quite the contrary. His writing was enormously popular during his lifetime and many of his best novels and stories remain in print.

Anonymous said...

This tower-block, or hierarchical, view of fiction is, in my view, a product of male intellectuals. The tower block is a male erection; and, like all male erections, it is fundamentally ridiculous.

Oh dear the language of deconstructionism is more infectious than I thought.
Inferior novels exist. I have read a few in my time. They are invariably not a sign of poor public taste but of publishers who failed of doing their job.

The strange attitudes to anothers race,sex,religion or class are often reasons to read books from that period. Half of the fun of reading say George Borrow is to gawk at his prejudices.

Reading other books there have been occasions when I have baulked at the re-discovery that
while we might wish to confine those views to a group it is safe to dislike such intellectual snobs or right wing nutters, Inactuality they suffused all society. Orwell could hit his native servants and regret the tendency of the products of minor public schools to deplore as lower class people who earned more than them.
Writers could and did arise from
lower down the social order and though despised themselves still espouse racism, sexism, and class snobery. Winifred Watson springs to mind.
Literary appriciation is just another way of breaking people into U and non-u. Us and them. Chav or Horray Henry black or white.
the danger is not in the labels arbitrary as they maybe but rather in the pretence that the rules of civilisation do not apply to those thus designated barbarians.

David said...

Hi, I was just out blog surfing for detailed info on self help when I ended up on your page. Obviously I ended up a little off base, but I am certainly glad I did. If you wouldn't mind, I would like to post your link on my "favorites" page. Should you ever need it, there is valuable information on my site about self help.

8709 said...

Interesting blog you have here, I landed here on accident. I was searcing for something else and came across your site. I found it pretty interesting and entertaining. I got you book marked.

I will pop back in from time to time to see what you have new here.

My site is a bit different than yours, but just as entertaining and educational, I run a mens male enhancement reviews related site pertaining to mens male enhancement reviews related articles.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
V.A. Jeffrey said...

>>>According to the intelligentsia, the world of fiction is, so to speak, a tower block with ‘serious literary novels’ firmly ensconced in the penthouse.<<<

They can stay there as far as I'm concerned. Meanwhile I'll be lighting a huge fire at the foundation!

I've read John Carey's book and it verbalized quite eloquently and concisely what I've always thought!

Anonymous said...

'Where are the sound arguments and research data'?

One sound argument:- the longevity of a work of art is a strong indication of its intrinsic worth

One easy way to collect research data:- pop down to Waterstones & see what works by dead authors are still for sale

And one question:- If Mr Carey is so opposed to elites deciding which works of art are best, why has he twice been Chairman of the Booker panel?

Anonymous said...

Although this is a rather old post, I found it via Googling and I'd just like to say bravo, or thanks, or jolly good stuff, or something along those lines. I'm now seeking some mechanism by which I can force everybody on the internets to read it, because I really think everybody should.

Anonymous said...

While deploring some of the more bloodthirsty opinions of certain literary intellectuals, I can't help but feel an uncomfortable sense of agreement with their unease about the modern world. We have elite standards in many areas of life (professional sport for instance) so why not literature? I speak as a prole, semi educated, a clerk if you like, surrounded by celebrity magazines and numerous tv channels that boast diversity but practice the egalitarianism of numbing and dumbing our minds. The masses exist, at least in the minds of those who would make money out of us. Our sense of humanity and outrage at misanthropic opinions ought not to blind us to the debilitating effects of mass opinion.

Anonymous said...

'I've read John Carey's book and it verbalized quite eloquently and concisely what I've always thought!."

Which is not a lot by the sound of it.

Anonymous said...

восстановление зрения
зеленый лазер

Claire said...

This was a really interesting blog to read, I am a 2nd year Journalism student at the University of Winchester, and writing a seminar paper on 'The Intellectuals and the Masses' - thank you for providing a good read! :)

hp samsung said...

nice blog :)

Anonymous said...

"but I think we could argue that that event [The French Revolution] was deeply disturbing to all those in Europe who held positions of influence, power, and wealth." I think every person of good will and ordinary day-to-day human goodness and compassion should have been and to this still be, disturbed by the French Revolution.

yanmaneee said...

lebron shoes
golden goose sneakers
kyrie 6 shoes
off white
off white
curry 8 shoes
golden goose sneakers
supreme hoodie
lebron 16

Unknown said...

have a peek at this web-sitetry this out click sitemy review here a fantastic readhelpful resources

teslaez said...

websites bags replica ysl web link bags replica ysl hop over to here best replica designer

Unknown said...

m4x82x6d60 u3w75z5j56 q5a35u6i54 n3w67y9w18 n2k84b9o26 m6u74o3t29