Welcome to The Valve
Login
Register


Valve Links

The Front Page
Statement of Purpose

John Holbo - Editor
Scott Eric Kaufman - Editor
Aaron Bady
Adam Roberts
Amardeep Singh
Andrew Seal
Bill Benzon
Daniel Green
Jonathan Goodwin
Joseph Kugelmass
Lawrence LaRiviere White
Marc Bousquet
Matt Greenfield
Miriam Burstein
Ray Davis
Rohan Maitzen
Sean McCann
Guest Authors

Laura Carroll
Mark Bauerlein
Miriam Jones

Past Valve Book Events

cover of the book Theory's Empire

Event Archive

cover of the book The Literary Wittgenstein

Event Archive

cover of the book Graphs, Maps, Trees

Event Archive

cover of the book How Novels Think

Event Archive

cover of the book The Trouble With Diversity

Event Archive

cover of the book What's Liberal About the Liberal Arts?

Event Archive

cover of the book The Novel of Purpose

Event Archive

The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Happy Trails to You

What’s an Encyclopedia These Days?

Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Intimate Enemies: What’s Opera, Doc?

Alphonso Lingis talks of various things, cameras and photos among them

Feynmann, John von Neumann, and Mental Models

Support Michael Sporn’s Film about Edgar Allen Poe

Philosophy, Ontics or Toothpaste for the Mind

Nazi Rules for Regulating Funk ‘n Freedom

The Early History of Modern Computing: A Brief Chronology

Computing Encounters Being, an Addendum

On the Origin of Objects (towards a philosophy of computation)

Symposium on Graeber’s Debt

The Nightmare of Digital Film Preservation

Richard Petti on Occupy Wall Street: America HAS a Ruling Class

Bill Benzon on Whatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhat?

Nick J. on The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Bill Benzon on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Norma on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Bill Benzon on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

john balwit on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on That Shakespeare Thing

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

JoseAngel on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Bill Benzon on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Advanced Search

Articles
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

Comments
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

XHTML | CSS

Powered by Expression Engine
Logo by John Holbo

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

 


Blogroll

2blowhards
About Last Night
Academic Splat
Acephalous
Amardeep Singh
Beatrice
Bemsha Swing
Bitch. Ph.D.
Blogenspiel
Blogging the Renaissance
Bookslut
Booksquare
Butterflies & Wheels
Cahiers de Corey
Category D
Charlotte Street
Cheeky Prof
Chekhov’s Mistress
Chrononautic Log
Cliopatria
Cogito, ergo Zoom
Collected Miscellany
Completely Futile
Confessions of an Idiosyncratic Mind
Conversational Reading
Critical Mass
Crooked Timber
Culture Cat
Culture Industry
CultureSpace
Early Modern Notes
Easily Distracted
fait accompi
Fernham
Ferule & Fescue
Ftrain
GalleyCat
Ghost in the Wire
Giornale Nuovo
God of the Machine
Golden Rule Jones
Grumpy Old Bookman
Ideas of Imperfection
Idiocentrism
Idiotprogrammer
if:book
In Favor of Thinking
In Medias Res
Inside Higher Ed
jane dark’s sugarhigh!
John & Belle Have A Blog
John Crowley
Jonathan Goodwin
Kathryn Cramer
Kitabkhana
Languagehat
Languor Management
Light Reading
Like Anna Karina’s Sweater
Lime Tree
Limited Inc.
Long Pauses
Long Story, Short Pier
Long Sunday
MadInkBeard
Making Light
Maud Newton
Michael Berube
Moo2
MoorishGirl
Motime Like the Present
Narrow Shore
Neil Gaiman
Old Hag
Open University
Pas au-delà
Philobiblion
Planned Obsolescence
Printculture
Pseudopodium
Quick Study
Rake’s Progress
Reader of depressing books
Reading Room
ReadySteadyBlog
Reassigned Time
Reeling and Writhing
Return of the Reluctant
S1ngularity::criticism
Say Something Wonderful
Scribblingwoman
Seventypes
Shaken & Stirred
Silliman’s Blog
Slaves of Academe
Sorrow at Sills Bend
Sounds & Fury
Splinters
Spurious
Stochastic Bookmark
Tenured Radical
the Diaries of Franz Kafka
The Elegant Variation
The Home and the World
The Intersection
The Litblog Co-Op
The Literary Saloon
The Literary Thug
The Little Professor
The Midnight Bell
The Mumpsimus
The Pinocchio Theory
The Reading Experience
The Salt-Box
The Weblog
This Public Address
This Space: The Fire’s Blog
Thoughts, Arguments & Rants
Tingle Alley
Uncomplicatedly
Unfogged
University Diaries
Unqualified Offerings
Waggish
What Now?
William Gibson
Wordherders

Wednesday, December 03, 2008

Miller on Olsen on Galbraith on Golding

Posted by Jonathan Goodwin on 12/03/08 at 04:24 PM

From Nancy K. Miller’s “On Being Wrong,” Profession 2008:

[Tillie] Olsen attended a lecture given at her daughter’s high school during parents’ weekend. Inspired by his reading of The Lord of the Flies, John Kenneth Galbraith, then professor of economics at Harvard, was holding forth on the lessons of the novel, concluding that “human beings by nature are wired to be individualistic, and to crush those in the way as they strive to get to the top of the heap and to look out for themselves. At this point, Laurie Olsen described her mother rising from the audience, interrupting the speaker’s peroration to declare in a voice that echoed throughout the room, “You are wrong, sir!"

Miller then describes Olsen telling Galbraith how children comfort each other and that “to feel and respond to another’s pain is one of the deepest human impulses, wired into the human spirit” (58-59).

I agree with Olsen. The problem is that Galbraith must have as well. He was holding forth on the lessons of the novel--not, unless I’ve completely misunderstood everything I’ve ever read by him, agreeing with them.

UPDATE:

I found a reference in an introduction to The Lord of the Flies that mentioned presidential advisor JKG’s fondness for the book, so I’m not as sure as I originally was about this. My memories of Galbraith’s reference to the thesis about human nature quoted above are mostly mocking references to the neo-classical economic view of man, but comments about this are welcome.


Comments

I’m just messing around, but what about these questions?  Why do both people use “wired”?  Is that a helpful metaphor?  Is “individualistic” the same as “individuals”?  Is “crush” overly dramatic?  Might I just edge my way by on the way to the top?  Do I “strive” on the way there, or am I “wired” to try to get there “by nature,” and might I not have to “strive” to do anything so natural?  Must social organization be a “heap”?  If people “look out for themselves,” is that easily a grammatical coordination with the notion of getting to thr “top of the heap”?  If I “feel and respond to another’s pain,” have I stopped striving, or lost ambition, or ceased to be an individual or “individualistic”?  How vague a concept is “the human spirit”?  It’s hard to say whether I agree with Olsen, or Galbraith, or you, for that matter.  I don’t, as must be clear since I formulate everything as a question, know what I am talking about, nor, I suspect, does anyone when we talk about “human beings” or the “human spirit” as if we had a referent.

By on 12/03/08 at 11:12 PM | Permanent link to this comment

I suppose that, outside of the non-well-formulatedness of the question at hand, the main thing that drew my attention to this was Galbraith being the unlikely villain, as opposed to Milton Friedman or Gary Becker. I remember Christopher Hitchens referring to The Lord of the Flies as a frighteningly reactionary book, or something similar. It was a staple of public high school reading lists for a long time in the Cold War era.

By Jonathan Goodwin on 12/03/08 at 11:18 PM | Permanent link to this comment

I think of Lord of the Flies (along with Waugh and Burgess in “A Clockwork Orange") as being part of a long tradition of grumpy British anti-progressive original-sin literature, stretching back through CS Lewis and Chesterton to Cardinal Newman (I think), Dr. Johnson, Swift, and so on. It hooks up to the views of the less cheerful economists (Malthus was an Anglican parson). Economists assumed sinfulness but tried to harness it, and their belief in original sin justified the cruelties of capitalism.

In other news, I went to college with Laurie Olsen but never knew her. She was memorably attractive.

By John Emerson on 12/04/08 at 04:51 PM | Permanent link to this comment

I can see how it would hook up with the views of the less cheerful economists, but does it with Galbraith’s? (Who was sardonic, certainly, about the virtues of the managerial class; but is this the same thing?)

By Jonathan Goodwin on 12/06/08 at 12:03 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Yeah, I was talking about LOTF, etc., not Galbraith. I suspect that Olsen, God bless her heart, missed a level of Galbraithian irony.

I wasn’t sure that Tolkein belongs on my list, BtW, so I left him off. But he might. I thought he was far too quick to conclude that Beowulf was monkish and deeply Christian.

By John Emerson on 12/06/08 at 05:39 PM | Permanent link to this comment

I was not assigned The Lord of the Flies in school and read it only after finishing college.  I once had a discussion with a coworker (who was, incidentally, Catholic, but who may have attended public schools) who insisted the meaning of the story was Christianity.  I find that idea a little odd, if not disturbing.

It’s been a long time since I read it, but . . .  Presumably Piggy, who is immolated, and who as someone who wears glasses is seen as meek, “is” Jesus (in the story).  But why is this the Jesus story?  Why is it not the Ishtar-religion story (pigs were sacred to Ishtar)?  Is it not sacrilegious to suggest an analogy between Jesus and a (non-kosher) pig, between Christianity and a pagan religion (and not just any pagan religion, but the very pagan religion the Old Testament sets itself against)?

Or is this a misunderstanding?

By bianca steele on 12/06/08 at 06:27 PM | Permanent link to this comment

On the right-wing fatuity of LOTF, if anyone’s interested:
http://scrolling.blogs.com/drmetablog/2006/02/what_we_read_in.html

By Vivian de St. Vrain on 12/11/08 at 08:20 PM | Permanent link to this comment

I always had the fairly strong impression that the main framework of the novel came out of evolutionist and proto-anthropological ideas of the late 19th and early 20th centuries; particularly 1) the sort of Social Darwinist idea that children, women, “savages”, criminals, etc were all kind of the same, insofar as they were lower on some unilinear scale of excellence than ... well ... than the authors of works propounding these ideas (and that they could all therefore be expected to behave in the same “primitive” way); 2) some debased version of “ontology recapitulates phylogeny”, relayed, for instance, from Haeckel via Freud, according to which children could be expected to recapitulate the early history of mankind; and 3) early anthopological speculation in an evolutionary vein about about what mankind’s early history actually was, particularly its religious aspects—stuff about totemism, human sacrifice, and so forth.

Not that I have any direct evidence whatever for this—just a strong impression of resemblance as I was reading, and I suppose also the fact that the religious aspects (which were an obsession of early anthropology) seem otherwise unmotivated.

By on 03/18/09 at 08:01 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Add a comment:

Name:
Email:
Location:
URL:

 

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: