Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Henry Lee Harper's avatar

This is the first time in my life I have ever encountered the perspective that the study of the great books is somehow characterized as a culturally conservative endeavor! My understanding of the liberal arts tradition that engages with the great books has always been that it is a fundamental and crucial aspect of learning to treat all works of literature, including works of history, works of science, and works of religion as the distinct products of their authors, times, and places. To never ever understand them as works of dogma to believe or follow or not believe or not follow but to comprehend them, as best one can, and to assess and find the value in the full scope of their historical and cultural significance; to engage their context as fully as possible. To treat them seriously is never to take them too seriously, but to enjoy the opportunity to learn how and why and where and when they entered the canon and what for.

I would almost venture to say that that is close to the prime endeavor of the liberal art.

I might have to read this book just to see how and where and why and what for and by whose insult The Canon came to be viewed as a "conservative" body!

David M Gordon's avatar

Fascinating. I like that the Bulwark leaves space (makes room?) for the Humanities on a [mostly] Politics and nothing but Politics site. Your review, Cathy, brings forth a book and author that otherwise would not have crossed my attention. Now purchased. Thank you.

46 more comments...

Related articles

No posts