Brief Book Review: Against Inclusiveness: How the Diversity Regime is Flattening America and the West and What to Do About It

I hate to copy full texts from any book, especially one newly published, but sometimes that is the best way to make a point.

I've got Jim Kalb's new book Against Inclusiveness: How the Diversity Regime is Flattening America and the West and What to Do About It. It arrived at the bookstore where I placed the order far quicker than I expected (about four days). I think that is faster than Amazon.com's delivery time, unless one pays extra for overnight shipment.

In any case, I went to the table of contents first, and found in Chapter 10:

Making it Real
Difficulty of the Struggle - Towards an Anti-Inclusivist Right - Fundamental Needs: Ideals (The True, The Beautiful, The Just and Good, Religion); A Favorable Setting - Making the Case - Limits

I went to the "The Beautiful" section on pages 170-171, and below is what I read:

For modernity, beauty is no less a problem than truth. Since it makes man the measure, the scientistic view assimilates beauty to personal preference. It puts beauty in the eye of the beholder, and so makes pushpin as good as poetry. Such a view is contrary to all intelligent experience. Beauty is evidently part of how things are. It forces itself on us as something of indubitable value that cannot be reduced to personal preference. That is what it means to recognize it as beauty. Our perception of it may depend on taste, but a personal element does not make a perception merely subjective any more than the dependence of knowledge on qualities such as intelligence, experience, and good sense makes truth merely subjective (5).

Beauty falsifies the dogma that denies reality to whatever is difficult to analyze and impossible to measure. It connects the material world to something beyond itself and gives us an immediate perception of something transcendent that is worthy of our love. It gives pleasure, so it attracts and pleases, but it is no less at odds with the technological outlook than fasting and prayer. It cannot be forced, and technique serves it, but does not create it. You have to wait on it and let it be what it is.

So anti-technocratic education must emphasize the beautiful. When those who appeal to tradition and the transcendent lack a sense of beauty, what they propose seems less an absorbing way of life that leads us to a grasp of the reality of things than one arbitrary ideology among others, a matter of rules, team spirit, and group dominance and not much else.

5. For a ground-breaking study of the objectivity of aesthetic valuby by a scientifically-trained architectural theorist, see Alexander, The Nature of Order: An Essay on the Art of Building and the Nature of the Universe.

I think beauty is even more problematic than truth. There is truth, based on facts, objective, scientifically obtained facts, but how does one objectively establish beauty?

The problem may be less difficult for scholars and (honest) artist, but how does an ordinary person identify and accept beauty?

One's children are "beautiful" however ugly they may be in reality. One's religion is beautiful. Look at the beautiful mosques that Muslims build to express the beauty they see in their religion. One's language has beauty, however gutteral it may sound. An ugly outfit designed by a prestigious designer is considered beautiful by the high-society woman who wears it.

Yet, these same people will recognize truth, and reject lies, if they are truthful to themselves. An ordinary person can identify truth and lies, and will often discern lies even when sugar-coated with what seems like truth.

Beauty, in modernity, is far more problematic, and far easier to misidentify, than truth. It requires a different level of discernment. It may indeed really be the territory of experts who can identify it, and who relay that information to others. People can live without beauty for a longer period than truth, as long as they have some basics fulfilled like a family life, a comfortable income, shelter and food, and even find it acceptable to live without beauty.

But, ultimately, lack of beauty is far more insidious, because it drains people's objective reality slowly. One can fight against an obvious lie, but how does one fight for beauty? Walking by an ugly building, day after day, will numb the soul. Perhaps we can be saved by small acts for beauty, like Winston in Orwell's 1984, when he bought a paperweight simply because he found it beautiful amidst the soul-numbing ugliness around him.

Winston looked round the shabby little room above Mr. Charrington's shop. Beside the window the enormous bed was made up, with ragged blankets and a coverless bolster. The old-fashioned clock with the twelve-hour face was ticking away on the mantelpiece. In the corner, on the gateleg table, the glass paperweight which he had bought on his last visit gleamed softly outof the half-darkness...

[Julia] brought the glass paperweight over to the bed to have a look at it in a better light. He took it out of her hand, fascinated, as always, by the soft, rainwatery appearance of the glass.[1984, Part 2, Chapter 4]

And here is the seemingly innocuous paperweight being smashed to pieces by the thought police:

Something crashed on to the bed behind Winston's back. The head of a ladder had been thrust through the window and had burst in the frame. Someone was climbing through the window. There was a stampede of boots up the stairs. The room was full of solid men in black uniforms, with iron-shod boots on their feet and truncheons in their hands...

There was another crash. Someone had picked up the glass paperweight from the table and smashed it to pieces on the hearth-stone.

The fragment of coral, a tiny crinkle of pink like a sugar rosebud from a cake, rolled across the mat. How small, thought Winston, how small it always was!...

There was another, lighter step in the passage. Mr. Charrington came into the room. The demeanour of the black-uniformed men suddenly became more subdued. Something had also changed in Mr. Charrington's appearance. His eye fell on the fragments of the glass paperweight.

'Pick up those pieces,' he said sharply. [1984, Part 1, Chapter 10]

Charrington knows that beauty is revolutionary. It can ignite the rebellion of the weakened and submissive, like Winston. Once Winston realized the possibility of acquiring beauty, he started to gain some strength.

Kalb makes similar observations about the re-creation of language and meaning in liberal society in his new book:

To some extent, the new standards are based on the view that the old ones were bad, because they had to do with the non-commercial and non-bureaucratic arrangements of the old society. Reversing and violating those standards has therefore become a virtue. Central and marginal have changed places: Islam has become a religion of peace, homosexual couples stable and loving, blacks wise and spiritual, immigrants the true Americans. In contrast, Christianity is presented as a religion of war and aggression, Middle Americans as violent and irrational, Republicans as the Taliban, and traditional marriage as hateful, oppressive, divisive , and pathological. When women and minorities do well, they deserve the credit, when they do badly, white men deserve the blame. Any flaws in the groups promoted from the margin to the center are whitewashed, the more glaring the flaws the thicker the coating. [P. 8]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Throwing Out Ornament

Right: The new Ryerson University Image Arts glass box all lit up
Left: The cloister windows of Notre Dame of Paris

The posting below is from Camera Lucida, which I wrote last year:

Throwing Out Ornament
November 19, 2011
Camera Lucida

I walk by Ryerson University almost daily to get to and from the downtown amenities (stores, bank, subways, etc.). Yesterday, I saw a young man taking photos of the new Image Arts building. I asked him what attracted him to the building. He said he liked the simple square. The building in the evening is impressively lit, and glows in dark shades of blue and yellow. Other times, it lights up in fluorescent pinks and purples. I'm not sure if this lighting extravaganza is to honor the new building, or if it will continue regularly. In any case, for a building that calls itself image arts, it is a cheesy decoration. But, it accentuates the box-like structure of the building.

I asked this young man if he's a film or photography student. He said neither, but was studying to be a counselor for LGBT youth. "Lesbian---Gay---Bisexual---Transgender---Youth" I said. Yes, he answered.

I asked him if architecture hadn't regressed. "Think about the medieval cathedrals, or the renaissance palaces. All we do now is glass boxes. Lego for grown ups. We're back to simple squares and circle, just a little above the line in the sand drawn with a piece of stick."

He informed me of the level modern technology has reached in order to build an almost exclusively glass building, since the glass is now essentially as strong as concrete.

Yes, but we have lost art in the process. Also, the medieval stained glass windows were no less of a technical feat. Their designers had to work with coloring the glass, designing the shapes, figures and forms within the glass, and making it function as a window. Think of the beauty of the glass in Notre Dame Cathedral. And the strength of those windows which held up arches.

"I'm not into ornamentation," he replied nonchalantly, referencing (I think, although I may be giving him too much credit) the early twentieth century anti-ornament movement.

I don't think he's been to Paris, or even bothered with the history of glass and glass structures, when he gave me his quick, empty response.

"So what do you do" he asked me. I said I'm a former image arts (Ryerson) student of film and photography and that I tell people like him, one person at a time, that modern art, for all its supposed sophistication, has done us a great disservice, and is slowly dismantling our art and culture. And that my task as an image maker is to revive the tradition of the arts (of the image arts), and pick it up where modernism has thrown it aside, scornfully rejecting thousands of years of wisdom and erudition.

"Good bye, I have to be off now!" I said. Less than a minute later, I heard him shout from the (now empty) skating rink in front of the building: "I'm off too!" I hope he meant that he was done with those photos. Perhaps he just needed someone to jolt his intellect a little. I waved back, and walked on. But someone who has embraced this contrary life, this anti-life, is hardly going to be influenced by a five minute conversation. What he wants is the ultimate destruction of the traditional and religious society that condemns his "lifestyle." The less powerful this tradition, and its concrete reminders, the better for him and his ilk. Juvenile, even infantile art of basic shapes and design will certainly help with that regression, and ultimate destruction. One step at a time towards the gotterdammerung.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat