Just Finished Reading: We Are What We Read – A Life Within and Without Books by Vybarr Cregan-Reid (FP: 2024) [271pp] 

After reading and enjoying a previous book by this author (on RUNNING indeed!) I snapped this up on a recent visit to my local Indie bookshop. The plus factor, I would’ve picked it up anyway, was the fact that it was on books and the importance of reading for personal growth. It turned out to be much more than that. 

Essentially the book was divided into three streams which met up, mixed and then separated throughout the text. The main thrust, as you might expect, was about books themselves and how reading them changes us in positive ways. The author pointed to several studies were reading serious (or ‘proper’) literature actually increased a person's empathy, not just at the time, not just for a short time afterwards, but (apparently) permanently by rewiring the brain itself. Presumably “Literature” was used, rather than ‘just’ standard novels because the tests would’ve been performed on Uni students and by educated and professional scientists who wouldn’t ‘stoop’ to using trashy novels that the rest of us read? [I think this is the only, very minor, irritation I had with the whole book – the emphasis on ‘literary’ novels rather than ‘popular’ (and, by implication, trash) ones. 

The vehicle used to showcase the power of books and reading, and their capacity to induce change, was the author’s own lived experience. Much like me, although he COULD read, he showed very little interest in reading until quite late in life. With me it was around the age of 14. With the author it was much later – in his 20’s - but it happened in much the same way. One day a friend (who worked at a publishing house) dropped a book in his lap and advised him to read it. Which he did – eventually – and it completely blew his mind. After that he was (again eventually) reading everything that author had produced, then similar things, then other things and on.... Eventually someone suggested he go to Uni and STUDY literature which, eventually he did, followed by a MA and a PhD and then a teaching job. 

The third, and probably least interesting, theme in the book was the LONG war by the UK government on the Humanities in general and English in particular because, supposedly, such studies are not ‘useful’ or ‘practical’. It always used to both annoy and amuse me whenever I was home that my mother would ask what I was doing my latest degree ‘for’, as if everything had to be work related or have immediate/practical application. Of course, Education in its broadest sense is MUCH more than that – and doubly so with the Humanities or English. 

Although this wasn’t QUITE what I was expecting – especially the author struggling with being a gay teenager in Britain in the 1980’s during the AIDS epidemic/panic - I still enjoyed it a great deal. It did twinge my deeply entrenched belief that I am nowhere near ‘well-read’ (whatever THAT means) a few times and prompt me to dig into my Classics pile looking for books he recommended, but I forgave him for that. Overall, this is a very personal ‘love-letter’ to books and reading as well as a plea for its continued place for study in the University. Recommended. 

Just Finished Reading: How Children Learn by John Holt (FP: 1967) [173pp] 

Prior to my BA degree, part of which was in Educational Studies, my only interest with education was the fact I was going through it and wondering (at least sometimes) how exactly it was supposed to be working. I felt, more than a few times, that I was learning things despite the education system – from my own extra-curricular reading among other things – rather than because of it. So, when I came across Holt and other educational sceptics, I couldn’t help but nob at least at some of the points he, and others, made about educations (many) failings. 

I have long wondered at the difference in attitude between a pre-school child and one who has been in the system for some time. Toddlers and small children are like the embodiment of curiosity on speed. Kids are into everything and what the know everything. Parents, no doubt the world over, live in constant dread of the word ‘why’ which seems to be a constant refrain from small children. But send them to school and, for many, they stop asking. Why exactly does this happen? Because asking questions in school is generally frowned upon and discouraged – simply because there isn’t time to answer questions when work & study needs to be got through on a scheduled timetable. So, in far too many ways – at least in the standard system - schools are where curiosity goes to die. 

Of course, it doesn’t have to be this way as the author constantly points out in this intriguing short work. Left to their own devices children soak up knowledge like a sponge. Without the normal restrictions placed in their way be a rigid and regimented school system children will explore and delve into anything and everything they find interesting (which is essentially everything) and will keep on going until they’re satisfied (which is generally never). So, Holt recommends, the best thing a school can do it get out of the way and be around to offer advice and direction – but only when its specifically asked for: by the Child. In the real world, in the present educational system, this (of course) simply wouldn’t work. You can’t have 30-40 questing and questioning young children in a class being guided by a single overworked teacher. You certainly could have a rigid system with timetables to follow – with each child in reality learning and growing at their own individual pace – and with standard tests and exams to pass. It just wouldn’t work – not even a little bit. 

Sceptical by nature (or maybe I just grew up that way learning as I go) I found this idea more than a little utopian. But, and it's a pretty big but, Holt actually talks a great deal of sense. Young children learn by doing and by following their own noses. They ask questions like ‘Why is water wet?’ or ‘Why is the sky blue?’ and adults, as a rule, either dismiss the question (and the child) or shrug and say ‘I don’t know. Stop asking stupid questions’, when the question is FAR from a stupid one. What the parent/adult *should* do is say ‘You know what, I’m not sure. Let’s both go find out, shall we?’ and treat it as the learning adventure it is. Life is full of learning opportunities like that. Give a child ‘permission’ to learn like that and watch them impressively go for it.  

Using examples of learning through games and experiments, talk/conversation, reading, sports and art, the author outlines his experience of children learning outside the system imposed on them and how they often surprise the adults around them, many of which who have long forgotten how much FUN it was to learn at that age. No doubt anyone in Education has already heard of (and maybe even read) this authors series of books – one more to come from me – and thinks of him either wistfully (or as a utopian fool). But even those not in the ‘industry’ can find many useful gems here despite the books age. A recommended read, most especially to anyone with young children in their lives.  

Just Finished Reading: The Marshmallow Test – Understanding Self-Control and How to Master It by Walter Mischel (FP: 2014)

Imagine you are a child sitting in an empty room looking at a plate on the table in front of you. On the plate is a marshmallow, a cookie or a sprinkle of M&Ms. You are told that you can have the item(s) if you wish – but if you wait an indeterminate time (until the person returns) you can have double the amount. So you wait…. And wait….. and then what do you do? Surprisingly, in study after study from across cultures, socio-economic groupings and many other variations of humanity the same results seem to hold true – the longer you can wait, the longer you can put off gratification the more likely you are to do well in school, go to university, have a higher income throughout your life, live longer, divorce less, have fewer long term health issues and spend less time explaining yourself to the police or a judge – just from waiting a bit longer than the next kid who gives into their impulse and grabs the cookie now.

Of course nothing is quite THAT straightforward! For one thing the results are statistical rather than personally predictive. The longer you wait increases the odds that you’ll end up doing a degree but it won’t ensure it no matter how long you wait. Being able to put off instant rewards until after you’ve finished your assignment is what gets you to college – not that one time you waited 15 minutes for the extra sweet. It’s the ability to think ahead, see the consequences of your actions, to plan and not be distracted (most of the time) by friends who just want to have fun. After the initial tests back in the 1970’s Mischel and various team members over the years replicated the work, discovered others who had replicated/validated it and dug into the WHY of things rather than just accepting that deferred gratification is both a good thing in itself and something that pays actual real-world dividends. What is more they wanted to know if the skills used by the children to control their natural desires to have the cookie and have it now could be taught to those who failed to control their desires (apparently it can!).

I’d heard of the original Marshmallow Test some time ago – probably in school or from the TV – and this was a good way of finding out the complete ins and outs of the experiment. I was not disappointed. The author (who was at the centre of the original tests) not only goes through the thinking back in the 70’s but then goes on to explain exactly what was going on in those quite rooms as the child struggles with their desires for a tasty treat. Funnily when I went to college back in the late 70’s one of our teachers described the new intake as ‘Middle Class’ to which we all laughed! We were a very working class bunch (my father for example was a pipe layer on building sites) and thought the idea of being described as middle class the height of absurdity. But then he said two words – deferred gratification. We were putting off rewards now (a low payed dead-end job) for greater rewards (a better payed job with prospects) later. That, he said, was a ‘Middle Class attitude’. Maybe I would’ve done quite well in the Marshmallow Test if I’d been given it? Then again with two siblings it was every child for themselves……! This is a fascinating book for a whole host of reasons especially if you have young children (or to be honest any age children) or even if you’re struggling with self-control yourself. It shows how self-control works, why it’s so difficult to master it and ways you can take back control or teach other people to do so. Recommended.       

Just Finished Reading: How Children Fail by John Holt (FP: 1964)

When I did my first BA degree (1983-86) my Major was Social Ethics but my Minor was Educational Studies. I’d studied Education in a sociological context in College so I’m not 100% certain if I heard of the author then or later or when exactly I bought this and two other of his books. What I do know is that, apart from dipping into them possibly for essay reasons, I hadn’t read any of them until now.

I’ve been aware since the mid 80’s that Holt was a radical in educational terms. This slim volume, covering some of his experiences as a maths teacher in the later 1950’s and early 1960’s provides some of the basis for his radicalism. Told in a series of ‘diary’ entries it shows how he tried to teach his students basic mathematics and what he learnt about both teaching techniques and how children themselves see schooling and how they fundamentally changed his ideas of education and, to address the subject at hand, why children fail – or at least don’t learn as much or as deeply as they could if teaching/schooling/education was different. One of the early things he brought up, and something that confused me for some time, was the obvious difference in attitude between pre-school and post-school children to learning. Pre-schoolers never leave you alone until they received an answer they can understand or at least accept. Anyone with experience of children – their own or others – dread it when they learn to ask ‘Why’ about EVERYTHING. Why is fire hot? Why is water wet? Why is the sky blue? And my particular favourite: Why does the wind blow? Pre-school kids are absolute learning/questing machines. They want to know everything and they want to know it, to actually understand it, NOW. To be honest it’s one of the things I LOVE about children – they are VORACIOUS world explorers. But once they go to school and start formal education that seems to get lost – at least in most kids. Even I lost interest for a while. I quickly found that not that much was expected of me and expended only as much energy as required to get through the day. Anything extra that I wanted to know I either found out in other ways or just forgot about. Learning in school was most definitely NOT about getting questions asked. It was about working through lesson plans along with the 80% of the rest of the class – the bottom 20% were either left to catch up or sent to a remedial class for ‘control’ rather than education. Luckily I had no issues keeping up although I admit that my handwriting early on as well as my spelling was frankly appalling. My handwriting improved immeasurably once I stopped trying to write ‘their’ way and my spelling improved through bloody hard work on my part as well as starting to read so much and simply learning for myself (and remembering) rather than learning any rules. To this day I still don’t understand the basics of grammar and punctuation – at least not on a theoretical level. In my school it wasn’t something we spent a great deal of time on.

The author was told more than once that he didn’t have the time and his school didn’t have the resources to actually teach his students properly – they never actually said this in so many words (obviously) but that’s what they meant. They had set lessons, set timetables and set criteria to meet. So they had a testing programme and a regime to ensure that as many pupils as possible made it through the tests – no matter if they actually UNDERSTOOD what they were regurgitating on command. The descriptions of his teaching experiences definitely resonated with me. Not only the fact that the teacher didn’t have to time or the energy to teach a subject adequately to a group of 20-30 children of (often) very different abilities but that children often helped each other to understand or took the heat from a floundering child to get things moving again. One thing that REALLY stuck out in the narrative was something that probably wouldn’t make it into a similar text today as it’s very non-politically correct. At one point in his teaching career he was trying to work out why the children in his school behaved as they did – seemingly at odds to their own best interests. It then hit him: the children were behaving exactly like concentration camp inmates or slaves on a plantation. They craved anonymity, hated being focused on, gave answers they knew the teachers wanted (often without any understanding of what the answers meant) and, when pushed, defaulted to uncooperative silence. The child’s one thought was to get out of school as quickly as possible and as painlessly as possible once their sentence was over (without even time off for good behaviour!).

I do wish I’d read this years – indeed decades – ago. Of course by the time I knew about it and had it to read it was far too late for it to inform me about the educational regime I was going through. But I was one of the lucky ones. Mostly I ‘got’ what the teacher wanted to impart pretty easily or could adequately fake it. I did find that if you had a reputation for knowing things that you were must less likely to be asked them as long as you put your hand up and looked smug. Then the teaching would ask someone who looked doubtful. Another lesson I learnt early one was never to be first to enter a classroom or the first to leave. Oh, and never sit at the back. Sitting at the front is far safer as the teacher tends to look over your head a lot of the time. People try to ‘hide’ at the back which is why teachers ‘look’ there! The trick, ultimately, is to appear smart enough but not too smart. Being too smart gets you picked on both by some of the other kids and the teachers. In any pack try, as much as possible, to be in the middle. Overall this was an interesting if rather unusual (for me) read. More than once I’ve been asked about going into teaching and I’ve always declined. Teaching is HARD – as no doubt a lot of parents are finding out right now – and has WAY too much responsibility. I imagine that it’s really easy to teach badly and so, so, hard to teach well. Personally I just wouldn’t want the stress. Recommended for anyone interested in education.

Just Finished Reading: The Two Cultures by C P Snow (FP: 1959/1964/1993)

In 1959 C P Snow gave the Rede Lecture at Cambridge University. In it he stated that there are two cultures within the academy who not only barely communicate with each other but look on the other with hostility and derision. Those cultures are Science and what is known today as the Humanities. Snow contended that in recent years – from the 1930’s to the late 50’s in England in particular – the two main braches of knowledge and intellectual exploration had begun talking past each other with both sides increasingly ignoring the advances or pronouncements of its counterpart. Such things could be forgiven, or even ignored, if they had no effect. But such a divorce, and especially an acrimonious one, has consequences and potentially serious ones at that. From the 30’s onwards both science and technology had been advancing at increasing speed with each passing year having a greater impact on the world around us. This was never truer than after 1945 with the detonation of the first atomic bomb. It became obvious that every educated person should have at least an appreciation of science and technology – if not any great knowledge – but that politicians and world leaders should have much more. Without such a basic knowledge ill-educated electorates cannot vote sensibly on important issues of the day and national leaders cannot tell when scientific advisors are giving poor advice – which it must be appreciated is a possibility. Likewise the scientific community needs to resist an ‘ivory tower’ temptation to hold themselves above the fray and to look on the world dispassionately in other to make rational decisions that could lead to the deaths of millions. Without fellow feeling, without a connection to the human condition, without an understanding of life from the level of the street it is all too easy to make wrong and dangerous decisions far too casually. This is the danger of the split Snow recognised in 1959.

He had no idea that the publication of his lecture would have the effect it did. He received letters from across the world, many positive but a few critical and occasionally with much vitriol, so quickly realised he had touched a rather raw nerve. After much thought and reflection he gave a second lecture in 1963 to address some of the issues raised, to explain some of the misunderstandings and to modify his views where needed. This made up the second part of this slim volume. Preceding the whole thing – in my 1993 Canto Classics edition – was a long, detaile4d and very interesting introduction by Stefan Collini who set the context of both talks and critiqued some of Snow’s ideas and assertions.

Overall this was a very interesting (and seminal) discussion of what education is for, who the dominance of one school or culture over the other works to the detriment of both, and how important it is for everyone – not just the ultimate decision makers – to have at least a basic understanding of scientific fundamentals. As Collini says this has yet to happen fully but, largely because of television, is a great deal better than during the 1960’s. So, there is hope but as always it seems more, much more, needs to be done. The rise of technical education and the higher profile of science is helping but general scientific ignorance can no longer be shrugged off. With technology becoming daily more important it is vital that we understand what we have in our hands, where it’s going and what we can do to channel technological advances in a way that serves humanity. It’s time we all became more educated.   

Just Finished Reading: A Jane Austen Education – How Six Novels taught me about Love, Friendship, and the Things that Really Matter by William Deresiewicz (FP: 2011)

Ok, how do you expect me to resist a book with that title? It practically LEPT off the table in the book store into my open hand. As a huge Austen fan (although with two of her books still unread – I bought the missing one last weekend) and someone with a growing interest in rather quirky Lit Crit I just had to read this. Considering I only bought it a few months ago it actually landed at the top of my ‘to read soon’ list pretty damned quick. But was it any good? Reader, I loved it (OK, that was paraphrasing a Bronte novel but I’ll get to that…).

Using each of the six novels to concentrate on a particular life lesson: Emma (Everyday Matters), Pride and Prejudice (Growing Up), Northanger Abbey (Learning to Learn), Mansfield Park (Being Good), Persuasion (True Friends) and Sense and Sensibility (Falling in Love) the author relates, along with a great deal of humour and personal revelations, how each book started him on the road to questioning the ways he had always done things and who he actually was (and wanted to be). His biggest revelation it seemed was that not only could Austen actually write – he was initially rather dismissive of 19th century literature as a whole – but that her novels were most definitely not simply early 19th century ‘chick lit’. Being forced, with great reluctance, to read Emma as part of his graduate English course he initially hated it (as did I) but was then increasingly brought under Austen’s spell as the eponymous character blossomed before his eyes. From then on he was hooked on Austen. So much so, indeed, that he used the lessons learnt from Emma to start a life changing process beginning with dumping his then girlfriend and moving further away from his domineering father. Not a bad start from someone so initially disparaging of her work! Over the next 3-4 years and 5 more novels the author become more convinced of Austen’s genius and used the lessons embedded between the covers to analyse both what was wrong in his own life and what was wrong in the world around him. It was, I can tell you, quite a journey.

Told with great dollops of literary insight – so much so that I’m tempted to re-read the Austen books I’ve already finished as well as finally read the final two - Northanger Abbey and Mansfield Park – as soon as possible. Re-reading books is a very rare activity for me but I think I’d find it interesting in this case as I could compare, in detail, the authors impressions compared with me own. I certainly agreed with a great deal of what he said regarding my favourite Austen novels – P&P, Persuasion and Emma (in order of preference) so re-reading them might give me a greater insight although I’m not sure if by doing so my life would change that much! His analysis of the two books I have yet to read has definitely piqued my interest and has definitely raised their profile and accelerated them on the path towards actually being read!

Interestingly after I finished this delightfully interesting book I checked to see if the author had written anything else. He had – and I immediately impulse bought his work outlining what he thinks is wrong with graduate education in the USA (although I’m guessing this would apply in the UK too if not necessarily elsewhere). His style, whit, insights and humour made this a hugely enjoyable work and I can highly recommend it to any Austen fans out there.  

Oh, the Bronte thing - it seems that in the world of English Lit there's a huge competitive rift between fans of each author and, in the end, he really did marry her (without giving too much away....)

Just Finished Reading: Anti-Intellectualism in American Life by Richard Hofstadter (FP: 1962)

This is not an easy book to precis. For one thing it covers a lot of largely unfamiliar ground (to me). My knowledge of American history – to say nothing of American political and educational history – is….well, patchy. For another I was, again largely, unfamiliar with around 75-80% of the people mentioned throughout the book. It did not make it an easy read. However, to say that this book was difficult, obscure or simply unfamiliar would to miss the point. As a winner of the 1964 Pulitzer Prize in Non-Fiction it is, understandably, very well written. Anything less would, I think, have made this unreadable – at least for me.

Focusing initially on the recent (to the author!) excesses of McCarthyism and its attacks on Communism and Intellectualism (often conflated as the same thing) the author contended that this was far from a new phenomenon and that it had actually existed throughout American culture almost from the very beginning. Although the Founding Fathers were arguably intellectuals almost to a man those who followed them were anything but and, far too often, the very opposite. There developed a thread, which ran throughout American life that the Intellectual was at best unnecessary or a distraction from the work needed to be done in the New World, and at worst a subversive or questionably element that might undermine the very fabric of the new society being built on the new continent. Indeed the intellectual was tinged with the smell of European corrupt values that many had come to America to escape. What was needed now was hard work and common sense not deep thought and pseudo-European elitism.

This is not to say that America turned its back on intelligence – far from it. Even more than before intelligence was needed to grow the economy, manage the republic’s Manifest Destiny and plan the bright future clearly ahead of them. What they didn’t need was perverted intelligence produced in the elite schools, colleges and universities (at tax payers expense no less!) that thrived on criticism of the status quo and called common sense solutions into question. The irony was, of course, that as the economy grew and technology became more and more pervasive these very intellectuals became more and more needed to help run things. Business was still in the driver’s seat though – and intellectuals became generally low paid and underappreciated, if not actually invisible, hired-help brought in to fix problems and propose practical solutions to real-world problems rather to spout theory in their cloistered ivory towers. Once the crisis passed they, more often than not, returned to their universities to write books and argue esoteric points with other, even more out of touch, intellectuals. Even more ironic was the effect of anti-intellectualism on the American education system which, over the decades, slowly abandoned the idea of training the mind (thereby producing useless elites) and instead concentrated on training the body and more closely integrating a diverse population and inculcating democratic values on a whole generation.

The paragraphs above do scant service to this very interesting book. Although, as mentioned above, the personalities and some of the cultural nuance went straight over my head, I do feel I understand the often perplexing American psyche a lot more than before reading this book. I’m even starting to appreciate why some people can see the idea of President Trump as a ‘good thing’ rather than a joke in very poor taste. It also helped to explain (or at least hint at) why any kind of claim to specialist knowledge, rather than simple hard won experience in the ‘real world’ is often characterised, by Americans in particular, as unacceptably elitist. Rather than having the best qualified person in post there are those who would rather have an untrained amateur instead – no matter what the consequences. It’s weird but at least I’m starting to appreciate where that ideas comes from. Recommended and definitely worthy of a Pulitzer.
  
Coming next – Three books on the Working Class.

Just Finished Reading: Confronting the Classics by Mary Beard (FP: 2013)

To date I’ve had precious little contact with the Greek and Roman classics. For one thing such works where not exactly the staple of a working class ‘comprehensive’ education. For another they’ve always had the reputation of being difficult, elitist and, to be honest, irrelevant in the 21st Century. I’ve dabbled with Marcus Aurelius, Cicero and Lucretius but that’s about it (at least cover to cover reading) and dipped into Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics during my last University course but, at least so far, that’s as far as it goes. OK it’s probably a lot more than the average non-Public School person but still it’s pretty pitiful. I have probably another 30-40 such classics scattered around in various piles that I fully intend to pick up at some point. This excellent volume – basically a collection of some of the author’s many reviews – has definitely increased the odds that I’ll actually do this. It will also definitely make me look at what I’ll be reading in new and (hopefully) interesting ways.

One of the many things that made me laugh whilst reading this book (who would have thought that discussions of ancient Greek literature could be laugh out loud funny?) was the idea that the more readable the translation of the Greek original the less accurate it was likely to be – especially regarding Thucydides who apparently didn’t say his much quoted comment about the abuse of power (or at least not in the catchy way it’s remembered and often use – including by me). When I read him – and other Greek authors in future – I’ll keep that in mind.

Of course the surprising thing is that so much of ancient literature survived to be read in the 21st Century. Amusingly the author regards the examples we do have as the classical equivalent of random waste paper baskets from random office buildings. Some Greek poets left behind less than 20 lines of their work. How, she says, are we supposed to understand their work or their lives from such findings? It’s a good question. How much do we really know about this period? Not as much as we think we do it seems!

This was another of those books I picked up in my local (chain) bookstore because it was something different and something that existed on the edges of my knowledge. Reading Aristotle at University impressed me quite a bit with his modern approach – which I now appreciate probably said much more about the translator rather than the man himself – and I look forward to reading him again in the future (despite the fact that his classic books are suspected to be nothing more than lecture notes rather than books intended for publication). I’m also looking forward to reading Julius Cesare’s epic retelling (and propaganda piece) about his conquest of Gaul as well as Xenophon’s tale of his armies retreat across the Persian Empire. So much history, philosophy and politics to take it and so many significant works of literature…. Where to start……? But if you want to get a good flavour of classical literature (and Asterix!) this is a great place to start. Recommended.    

Just Finished Reading: In Search of Civilisation – Remaking a Tarnished Idea by John Armstrong (FP: 2009)

What exactly is Civilisation? This is the deceptively simple question the author asks at the beginning of this intriguing and thought provoking little book (a mere 195 pages long). Is it something as practical and as material as somewhere you can get a tire changed after a roadside puncture or where you can get decent broadband speeds? Or is it something more than advanced technology and 24 hour supermarkets or where you can get pizza delivered to your door at 3am? 

Some think of civilisation as the rule of law, a place where you can feel safe in your bed and don’t feel the need to carry arms or band together for protection against other bands of like-minded individuals. Is it a place where the State can be assumed to look after your basic interests and at the same time leave you alone to flourish on your own terms – a place where you are protected against potential encroachment on your basic freedoms and are given further freedom to grow? Or is it still more than this?

Is civilisation a place where individuals or groups are given the time, space and encouragement to create objects or works that have no practical value but are appreciated for other things – what we call art, music, literature or simply 'the arts'? Is civilisation a place the produces decorative pottery, grand architecture, opera, poetry, paintings that cause their viewers to weep or shout in outrage? Is civilisation the kind of place that produces Wagner, Picasso, Bach, T S Eliot and Jules Verne? Could a civilisation be defined by the number, variety and output of its artists?

But what of the citizens in this civilisation, whatever we chose to mean by that word? Are civilised citizens the kind of people who consume art like tins of soup, who value art or great works of literature for their resale value or the kudos their ownership brings them? Or is being civilised something more than that? Is it appreciating art and literature for what it is rather than what it costs? Is it actually striving to understand the work in question, taking the time, effort and education to truly see the object in front of them in all its glory rather than be impressed by technique or simple effort? Or is it just elitist to build opera houses and art galleries to exhibit the works often designated as classic or world class? Is this idea of civilisation another way to oppress and denigrate the rest of us while a small self-selecting self-defining elite drink their wine in front of paintings that the majority would not give a second glance to?

These are some of the important questions raised and addressed in this frankly fascinating and thought provoking work. Armstrong argues, and I largely agree with him, that civilisation has for far too long been side-lined and demonised as something we have either grown out of – like a childish illusion – or that we have realised was just another way for the rich to look down on and distinguish themselves from the poor and ignorant masses – in other words an elitist idea held by those who viewed themselves as our betters. Although culture has been used like this – as a weapon and a wedge – this is not, the author argues – what civilisation is. Civilisation is the best part of us, not something locked away in darkened rooms for the delight of a few but something that should be on display to uplift, enlighten and amaze us all. Civilisation is something that everyone should be involved in, an ongoing project of societal improvement and education which is far from elitist. An appreciation of Beethoven or Shelly is something that can all have. An enjoyment of Shakespeare is nothing to be ashamed of and equally nothing to be superior about. Shakespeare, like civilisation itself, is for everyone. We just need to recognise that fact to keep civilisation civilised.

Just Finished Reading: Bluestockings – The remarkable Story of the First Women to Fight for an Education by Jane Robinson



I have a problem with prejudice and discrimination. My problem is that I don’t understand it. When I meet someone I don’t think of them as a member of any particular group. I see that as a unique individual rather than an example of a ‘race’, colour, gender or sexual orientation. Knowing that you’ll have a clearer understanding why some of the attitudes in this book perplexed me.


It would seem that there has always been opposition, until very recently, to the idea of educating women – at all. Not only where they considered to be basically unable to reason in the same way men did but that too much thinking could make women sterile – or worse, independently minded. The early resistance to the very idea of teaching women anything other than how to run an effective household was staggering which made the pioneers of women’s education all the more heroic. These often forgotten women (and a few men) fought against prejudice and ignorance to found the first schools, colleges and later universities where women could learn the same subjects as men and pass the same exams. The time and effort it took is staggering to behold. I never realised that, what many take for granted today – that women are the equal of men in all things – was a truly alien concept until very recently (actually within living memory in some cases). Of course education of women inevitably led to demands for greater job opportunities and even the vote – which some early critics pointed out would bring down western civilisation (represented at that time by the British Empire). In some ways they were of course right. The west has changed out of all recognition in the 200 years or so between the first fumbling steps to educational equality for women and the opportunities that both genders have today.


Drawing on personal memories of the early pioneers still living and the diaries of those now dead, the author weaves a fascinating tale of hard battles won and lost in the drive for equality between the sexes. Sometimes deeply personal, this book often surprised me with the deeply irrational barriers put in the way of women who wanted nothing more to learn, think and be heard. It astounded me that otherwise well respected men (and even more surprisingly women) dismissed the possibility of an educated woman as if such an idea was absurd at best. The vitriol directed at these women and their supporters staggers belief. The threat felt by those who represented the ‘Establishment’ must have been heart felt indeed. Luckily more sensible, reasonable and forward looking heads prevailed and slowly women took up the challenge they had so long fought for – an education as good as any man. I take my hat off to those pioneers who fought so long and so hard for an apparently simple thing – equality of opportunity. I am impressed both with them and this book that brought them to my attention. Heartily recommended for anyone interested in modern (mainly English) social history.

Just Finished Reading: The Age of American Unreason by Susan Jacoby

I impulse bought this a few weeks ago whilst browsing through the 3 for 2 section in Waterstone’s bookstore. I’ve wondered for a while why the US was unique in its disbelief in Evolution for example. I hoped that this book could enlighten me on the subject. In some ways it did – at least partially.

Susan Jacoby attempts to answer this question: What is it about American Society that makes so many people anti-intellectual? Ultimately after a smidge over 300 pages I think she actually fails to answer that question – though she does provide some interesting hints and ideas along the way. The final destination might have been disappointing but the journey was generally worth it. Rather predictably, and somewhat inevitably, Jacoby points one of her fingers at the dumbing effects of television. To an extent I can agree with her. It is not unusual for me to cycle through every channel – however many there are – and discover that there is simply nothing worth watching and even less that is in any way challenging, mind expanding or remotely educational. Such things are, however, not particular to either side of the Atlantic Ocean. Her other major hobby horses are the decline in book readership and a similar decline in good conversation (sapped by the fact that everyone is watching the boob tube). Again I can agree with her up to a point. We seem to talk a lot these days – on mobile phones and on-line – but we don’t seem to be saying very much. I enjoy chatting as much as the next person but find that most conversations are ephemeral at best. The Art of Conversation is, I’m afraid, pretty much extinct. Regarding books and reading, I know several people who proudly boast that they have never read a book since school and wear such a declaration as a badge of honour. The average person – I read somewhere – reads on average three books a year. But I also see people reading books everywhere and I nearly always have to stand in line at bookshops. I can’t say for certain what it’s like in the US but books are far from dead over here.

Throughout her book Jacoby does point out some unique features of American society – as contrasted with European examples – that might point to the reason (she contends) that Americans are much more likely to be anti-intellectual (and by implication dumb) than other Western style countries. She mentions a lack of national educational standards and national agreed upon curricula. She, interestingly I thought, puts forward the idea that the lack of a State religion allows people who dissent to simply form one more to their liking rather than rebel against something thereby forcing themselves to think outside the box. She points to the Right’s ability to label the Left as Intellectuals and elitists who cannot be trusted because of the previous association with Communism. She lays a fair amount of blame at the door of the 60’s Counter-Culture and the Right-wing backlash both of which damaged the application of reasoned discourse. She blames the decline of serious magazines and the widespread dumbing down of culture to what people can absorb during the average visit to the toilet and, of course, she lays a great deal of blame at the feet of fundamentalists and the apparent growing number of people who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, an idea which is anathema to the very concept of critical thinking.

Despite all of this I don’t think she makes a strong enough case for American exceptionalism. Many of the things she points to happened in Europe too – though maybe not to the same extent. Yet intellectuals are still held up as heroes especially in Continental Europe and even here in the UK. I suppose that the obvious difference between both cultures is that of religion. Europe appears to be divesting itself of its love affair with ancient myths whist the US is unique in the West by not only retaining its religious beliefs but seemingly strengthening them. This in itself is very odd and needs to be explained. However, I don’t think that this phenomenon in itself can explain American unreason. So, although the book was interesting, informative and well argued I think that Susan Jacoby failed to make her case. Despite this I think that she gave it a good run for its money and made some very good points. I certainly know much more about the reasons behind American culture than I did before reading this book and I’m glad that I did so. Jacoby’s book is well written and will give readers much to think about. Recommended.