The Great Conversation

As part of the process of tackling “great ideas,” we’ll be doing a certain amount of meta-talking—talking about what we’re talking about, and why we’re talking about it in the first place, or why we’re talking about it in a particular way, when we could be talking about it in so many other ways. There are a number of reasons for this, but perhaps the most inescapable one is this: “Greatness” is a “great idea.”

Those of you with a little background in critical thinking should have red flags appearing in that part of your brain that marks logical flaws and fallacies. Greatness is great—isn’t that a perfect example of circular reasoning? or of simply stating the obvious? And, of course, the answer is YES. But that doesn’t let us escape the dilemma.

More meta-talk: what is it we think we’re up to, again? Last semester, I put it like this:

Great Ideas is an interdisciplinary course intended to give students 1) some
exposure to ideas that are already considered “great” by some widely-accepted
standards, and 2) to help develop and refine the intellectual tools required to make judgments about the “greatness” of ideas and texts. The course was initially the product of faculty discussions about “the loss of cultural memory” and the troubled status of “the canon.”

The term “canon” refers to works considered to be exemplary with regard to a particular culture or tradition. When you hear traditionalists talk about “The Canon” it’s already assumed you should know which “Great Books” they’re talking about. If you don’t know, then perhaps you are lacking in basic “cultural literacy.”

The faculty members whose discussions led to our course weren’t really traditionalists in that sense. One of the reasons that it’s hard to know exactly what
texts ought to be “canonical” these days is that there has been a lot of attention paid
in recent decades to enlarging the range of texts and ideas we choose from when we go looking for the “essential” works. The Western Canon was largely the domain of “dead white guys,” and our sense of Western Culture has undoubtedly been enriched by attempts to include representative works by women, people of color, popular authors, etc. But the expansion of the canon does undoubtedly detract from the importance placed on the additions. Shakespeare or Tom Paine is no less great because we also read Elizabeth Palmer Peabody or Malcolm X, but an expanded canon in an age where the “great ideas” are arguably not as important as they
have been in other eras poses particular kinds of social problems.

I’m not going to insist that “loss of cultural memory” is our greatest problem. I will insist – over and over again, no doubt – that, to the extent that it can be managed, and managed with an eye to tolerance and justice, a shared cultural legacy does make it easier for us to talk to one another about important subjects. And, even if you oppose the values embodied in some so-called “great” works, you’re probably better able to do the things you want to do in a society based (however nominally or forgetfully) on the values embodied in those “great works.”

OK. I hope you recognized that there are two kinds of “greatness” being touched on here. One is received, traditional. It is also contested. Shakespeare and Plato are great because greatness in the realms of western literature and philosophy can hardly be discussed without taking them into account. If you wanted to take Shakespeare out of the high schools or colleges, you can bet you would have to have a pretty good reason why. And even this traditional greatness is not simply the product of some social conservatism. Face it: Shakespeare could really write! There is a reason so many of his bon mots have entered the English language as truisms and common sayings. But what we’re really saying here is that the first kind of greatness is not separate from the second kind, which is based in an ongoing evaluation. There may come a day when Shakespeare no longer speaks to us, though it’s a bit hard to imagine.

The point for us is that we need to be a bit clever about levels of discourse, right from the start. Remember, for example, that it is possible to say mediocre things about greatness. Consider that the ways in which we judge the individual greatness of individuals or ideas might well change, and yet “greatness” might still mean more or less the same thing. Practice turning this stuff over and around in your head until your get dizzy. It will help later.

Models and metaphors help to arrange things. One of our key models will be The Great Conversation. Mortimer Adler, the primary promoter of the Great Books of the Western World series, to which all Great Ideas programs owe a debt, used the phrase. A colleague of Adler’s, Robert M. Hutchins, said:

The tradition of the West is embodied in the Great Conversation that began in the dawn of history and that continues to the present day. Whatever the merits of other civilizations in other respects, no civilization is like that of the West in this respect. No other civilization can claim that its defining characteristic is a dialogue of this sort. No dialogue in any other civilization can compare with that of the West in the number of great works of the mind that have contributed to this dialogue. The goal toward which Western society moves is the Civilization of the Dialogue. The spirit of Western civilization is the spirit of inquiry. Its dominant element is the Logos. Nothing is to remain undiscussed. Everybody is to speak his mind. No proposition is to be left unexamined. The exchange of ideas is held to be the path to the realization of the potentialities of the race.

This is a pretty bold claim, and one which may raise more red flags for you. Is it really true that in the West, “everybody is to speak his mind” and “no proposition is to be left unexamined”?

This is, after all, related to our guiding question. How much freedom of thought and expression do we really tolerate?

But, back to the Conversation. If we are part of the Civilization of the Dialogue, or of the movement towards its realization, and if it is possible that that Dialogue is being neglected, then that’s Big News, and bad news. The Great Conversation is, by this reading, the central work of Western Civilization, on which all institutions of freedom and progress depend.

Stakes are, apparently, high—even if we don’t accept uncritically the sort of characterization that Hutchins gives to the problem.

What should we say about The Great Conversation as we get started? We’ll maintain a bit of skepticism about things, but let’s acknowledge that there has been, in some sense, ongoing debate about certain key human concerns for as long as humans have been debating. And this conversation is a Great Conversation because:

• it has been going on all of this time;
• it marks certain ideas and concerns as capable of demanding our continued attention while the world changes dramatically around them;
• its outcomes have shaped our political, social and economic institutions; and
• its current state helps shape our current debates.

As a working definition, let’s agree that the “great ideas” are those that won’t let us go, and continue to demand attention in the Great Conversation. )Adler had his list of 103 such ideas. We won’t adhere slavishly to his scheme, but it is an interesting list, and you should get familiar with it.) But who is in the Great Conversation? If you and I talk about duty or dialectic, is that part of the Conversation, or do we have to be the Platos of our day to count?

• The Elite answer: We can, and should, converse, but we should be guided by the best and brightest history has to offer us.
• The Populist answer: Everyone has their share of wisdom to contribute, though obviously some will take their responsibility in the affair more seriously than others.
• The Real-Political answer: Questions of truth, authenticity and wisdom aside, some folks make an impact and others don’t. Maybe the important thing is to focus on those who are shaping the world we live in now.

How does we choose? Do we get to choose? There’s probably some truth in all those perspectives.

• Some views really do seem to have “stood the test of time,” and we would be silly to ignore them.
• However, we do live in a world where sensational journalists, bloggers with perhaps a bit too much time of their hands, and best-selling pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore have as much to do with shaping our general sense of the world as individuals more renowned for wisdom and clarity. We can’t, and probably shouldn’t, try to stick our heads in the sand and pretend that we don’t live in the midst of an extremely complex media environment, in which all kinds of voices vie to be heard.

Let’s begin to tackle all of this simply be reading carefully, and always dragging our focus back to the realm of ideas. In any event, the first step in deciding to agree or disagree with any argument ought to be understanding of the position being advanced, and the safest road to understanding is the most dispationate analysis of what is being said, what ideas are being used, etc.