Open Faber.Pdf
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of the Liberal Arts AFTER PROGRESS: DEFINING AMERICAN POLITICAL AND CULTURAL MATURITY IN THE 1940s AND 1950s A Thesis in History by Robert S. Faber © 2006 Robert S. Faber Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2006 The thesis of Robert S. Faber was reviewed and approved* by the following: Anne C. Rose Professor of History, Religious Studies and Jewish Studies Thesis Adviser Chair of Committee Philip Jenkins Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies and History Greg A. Eghigian Associate Professor of History Sanford Schwartz Associate Professor of English Sally McMurry Professor of History and Head, Department of History and Religious Studies *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School. ABSTRACT In the middle of the twentieth century, a circle of influential intellectuals living in New York City believed that American culture, along with world civilization, had reached a crucial turning point. In a world characterized by global war, genocide, and the prospect of atomic destruction, they felt that classic liberalism had failed Western culture, and, indeed, that it had failed them personally as well. Their solution was an ideology that combined an anti-radicalism that rejected the extremes of both the left and the right, with cultural modernism, which eventually became a component of Cold War liberal ideology during the 1950s and the early 1960s. They expressed their views through literary criticism, historiography, and social science with a qualitative emphasis. These intellectuals were originally part of the anti-Stalinist left, and they were especially associated with the journal Partisan Review. The work of several intellectuals is examined, including Philip Rahv, William Philips, Dwight Macdonald, William Barrett, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., John Crowe Ransom, F.O. Matthiessen, Irving Howe, Sidney Hook, but the work of Lionel Trilling, Richard Chase, and Richard Hofstadter are subjected to detailed scrutiny. The work of Trilling, Chase and Hofstadter are held as paradigmatic examples of a particular anti-radical Cold War liberal discourse that was concerned with the relationship between personality and individual psychological development, and ideology. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowlegements………………………………………………………………….vi INTRODUCTION …………………………….…………………………….….......1 CHAPTER ONE …………………………………………………………..…..……13 The Sins of Middlebrow CHAPTER TWO …………………………………………………….…..…………36 Lionel Trilling: “Elements That Are Wanted” CHAPTER THREE ………………………………………………….…..………….64 Richard Chase: “As Lionel Trilling has said …” CHAPTER FOUR ……………………….…………………………………….…….104 The New Critics CHAPTER FIVE ………………………………………………….……………..….129 A Summer at Kenyon College CHAPTER SIX ………………………………………………………….………..….155 The Combative Mr. Chase CHAPTER SEVEN ……………………………………………………………….….209 The Counter-Progressive Ascendancy CHAPTER EIGHT ………………………………………………………………..….239 The Sources of Richard Hofstadter’s Anti-Radicalism CHAPTER NINE ……………………………………………………………..……...276 Expanding the Definition of a Radical iv CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………….…......304 BIBILIOGRAPHY………………………………………….………………….…313 v Acknowledgements First and foremost I must acknowledge the effort of my advisor, Anne Rose. Without her sage advice, perceptive criticism, and constant encouragement and support, I would not have been able to write this dissertation. I also have to thank the other members of my committee, Philip Jenkins, Sanford Schwartz, and Greg Eghigian for their effort, advice, and essential criticism. I also must thank the Stizer and Dolinger families for there generous support. Their endowments are an invaluable resource for Penn State graduate students. Without the Stizer Award I would not have been able to begin my research, and the Milton B. Dolinger Graduate Fellowship allowed me to finish my dissertation without the distraction of having to teach. The Penn State History Department also deserves acknowledgement for its support throughout my graduate career. In particular, I must thank Guido Ruggiero and Matthew Restall who, in their capacity as Director of Graduate Studies in History, provided me with invaluable support and advice. My experience while a graduate student has been truly fortunate. I have always found my fellow graduate students to be an exceptionally congenial group. Without their constant encouragement and bonhomie my years in State College would have been impossible. Indeed, without the friends that I have found here, I would never have completed my studies. Steven Sussman also deserves special acknowledgement for his expert counsel and strange humor. Without them I would not have been able to complete the ordeal of graduate school. vi And finally I need to express my gratitude to my parents, Irene and George Faber, for their infinite support and patience. This dissertation is dedicated to them. vii INTRODUCTION In the middle of the twentieth century, a circle of influential intellectuals living in New York City believed that American culture, along with world civilization, had reached a crucial turning point. In a world characterized by global war, genocide, and the prospect of atomic destruction, they felt that classic liberalism had failed Western culture, and, indeed, that it had failed them personally as well. The historical problems they perceived were not, in their eyes, caused by impersonal forces or totalitarian regimes, but rather by a liberal mind-set that tended to phrase issues abstractly, to look for clear and absolute answers, and that was far too credulous about the ability of human beings to secure progress by a combination of rationality and determination. For these intellectuals, the Enlightenment, and its long legacy in the West, could no longer be the sole guide of human affairs. They retained Enlightenment values selectively, but also argued that anyone interested in perpetuating a democratic legacy must appreciate the complexity and concreteness of life and must eschew abstract ideologies that ignore these tangible qualities. Literature and literary criticism were often their vehicles for exploring human issues precisely because imaginative thinking almost by necessity took account of the nuances of life. Historical writing and a qualitative approach to social science also satisfied their insistence on a concrete or realistic view of reality. Finally, they had a distaste for conventional political discourse -- that is, the ideological dichotomy of the left and the right that had dominated Western political discourse since the French Revolution. They believed that this ideological dichotomy led to abstraction and 1 tendency toward dogmatic formulations at the expense of genu9ine understanding. At the same time, however, their writings in effect served a political function, though often indirectly. This viewpoint grew out of the intellectual and political atmosphere of New York in the 1930s. During this time, intellectuals on the left waged fierce sectarian battles between those who supported -- either directly as a party member or indirectly as a fellow traveler -- the Communist Party, which was closely aligned with Moscow, and those radicals who believed that the Soviet Union had betrayed the principles of Marx. The most intense conflict started early in the decade as supporters of the exiled Soviet leader, Leon Trotsky, either left or were expelled from the American Communist Party (CPUSA). But there were other conflicts and disagreements among left-wing intellectuals. At the start of the thirties -- known as the so-called “Third Period” of the CPUSA -- the party strongly denounced liberals and socialists who believed that reform could still be achieved through conventional American politics. But in 1935, when the party reversed its position and called for the formation of a Popular Front and urged its members to form an alliance with socialist and liberals, some radicals left the party because they thought that it had compromised too much. Later, in 1939, many radicals who had been loyal to the Popular Front became utterly disillusioned with the Communist Party after the Soviet Union signed the infamous non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany. This infighting left many intellectuals involved in it with a distaste for ideological partisanship. There were also political and cultural disputes that were left from the Progressive era and the 1920s. Intellectuals strenuously disagreed over the meaning and implications 2 of the rise of popular mass culture. Some argued that it could serve the cause of reform, or even have a revolutionary impact by directing and instructing the masses. Other intellectuals urged a defense of traditional high culture, and still others believed that the avant-garde would act as a midwife for the revolution. Another continuing theme was evaluation of the quality and potential of American, or “native,” culture, especially compared with an ostensibly more cosmopolitan European culture. An intellectual’s ethnic and regional background often contributed to his or her viewpoint in these cultural conflicts, but there was no clear consensus in any discrete group. Furthermore, throughout the1930s political conflicts were tied to arguments over culture and thus matters of taste or aesthetics in art and literature were seen to have great ideological implications. These ideological battles were fought in a particularly sharp way in the journal, Partisan Review. The journal was founded in 1933 and