I have realized the major way in which I differ from David Brooks. He believes in “Whig history”. “Whig history” is a way of presenting events that suggests there is a continuous, ineluctable progression towards greater liberty and enlightenment. I think that’s Eurocentric and far too focused on the present day. Examples: there are probably more slaves today than at any time in human history. More people are being slaughtered in war than at any time in human history. The amount of carnage being wrought today exceeds Genghis Khan’s wildest dreams.
In his latest New York Times column Mr. Brooks divides “norm-breakers”, the bringers of cultural change, into five categories:
- Namers
- Confrontationalists
- Illuminators
- Conveners
- Celebrities
Because we definitely want to take advice on how we should behave from the worst-behaved people in the society, cf. the recent scandal over corrupt college admissions.
To those I would add at least two more:
Provocateurs
Provocateurs don’t really care whether the norms they’re opposing are good or bad. Their motto is like Marlon Brando’s line in The Wild One
Mildred: Hey Johnny, what are you rebelling against?
Johnny: Whadda you got?
Profiteers
Profiteers have something to gain by tearing down the icons they choose. Is it really a coincidence that Harvey Weinstein is a supporter of abortion rights?
We are conditioned to think of the present day as a culmination of events. The evidence is less clear. Carl Sandburg put it well:
We are the greatest city,
the greatest nation,
nothing like us ever was.
Change may be good or bad or, most frequently, both. Tradition is, as G. K. Chesterton aptly described it, the democracy of the dead. We should listen to it more closely and understand it before discarding it.
“Profiteers have something to gain by tearing down the icons they choose. Is it really a coincidence that Harvey Weinstein is a supporter of abortion rights?”
Really don’t get this one. If Weinstein had any icons it was Mammon. Have no idea how that relates to abortion. (By the way checked to make sure you were not using some obscure meaning of icon and the number one usage, per Merriam Webster, is now the computer icon. interesting language change.)
Steve
You don’t see the relationship between being a promiscuous womanizer and abuser and abortion? It preserves his sexual proclivities and his property.
In re: icons look up “iconoclast”.
Brooks always makes me think of Mr. Rogers.
Before liberty, self control.
Before enlightenment, respect.
I think his behavior had much more to do with power. I dont really think there was even the remote thought in his mind that he should support abortion so he could be promiscuous. What about all of the evangelical ministers and right wing politicians who have have been promiscuous and abusive who also opposed abortion? Seems like a reach to me.
Very disappointed in iconoclast. Since last means to break was hoping it would say the new meaning was to break a computer symbol, or something like that.
Steve