|
The Women's Freedom Network Newsletter
March/April, 1998, Vol. 5, No.2.
Reassessing the Sixties:
(New York: W.W. Norton, 1997) Reviewed by Claire Morgan |
S exual harassment, affirmative action, gay rights, and welfare: hot topics of the 1990s that owe much of their current prominence to the changes in moral and political values of the 1960s. Unfortunately, many of the individuals who deal in opinions regarding such issues, including journalists, activists and politicians - indeed the DC establishment - rarely take time to go beyond the issues and examine the underlying culture that gave birth to these ideas and continues to nourish them. To the extent that they do, there is a tendency to do so quickly and dismissively. This is especially true for those who would swap Sixties culture for counterculture, revolution for counterrevolution.
"Reassessing the Sixties" attempts to bridge this gap, and for the most part it is successful. The anthology provides a series of broad-based, generally thoughtful and thought-provoking perspectives, grounded in the various authors' personal and professional experiences. This is not a narrow book about public policy. Nor is it a dry academic work, although the essays it contains are written by academics. Rather, "Reassessing the Sixties" seems to be aimed at intelligent citizens who care about the fate of liberal democracy in America.
Taking its cue from Newt Gingrich and his followers, the book asks to what extent there actually was a political and cultural revolution in the wake of the Sixties. All of the contributors agree that the Sixties certainly brought change. The measured appraisals by Stephen Macedo and Todd Gitlin (who provide the introduction and afterword respectively) suggest that regardless of what we may think about the political and moral culture of the Sixties. we must acknowledge that the decade changed our thoughts and behavior fundamentally. Indeed, as Macedo points out, for all of his rhetoric, even the Speaker would have to concede the things have changed and there may be no going back:
"... I would suggest that it is inconceivable that a truly radical revolution against the cultural changes wrought by the 1960s would be led by a House Speaker whom we might so easily imagine having breakfast with his second wife, lunch with gay Republican Congressman Steve Gunderson, and dinner with Justice Clarence Thomas and his white spouse." (p. 17)
The question is what to make of that change, and here, as we might expect, we find some disagreement. The contributors respond with varying degrees of ambivalence (Anita LaFrance Allen on Racial Integration), praise (Martha Nussbaum on Women in the Sixties), blame (Walter Berns on the Universities), and even bitterness (Harvey Mansfield on the Legacy of the Late Sixties).
While the book departs from mainstream politics for its approach to the subject matter, it retains the usual left/right, liberal/conservative dichotomy to organize and structure its arguments. This is both good and bad.
If this is a book for intelligent citizens and not analytic philosophers, perhaps it is best to use conventional categories, especially if one is trying to shift the focus to slightly different subjects (i.e. political and moral culture rather than issues). Certainly a cursory examination of academia, with its share of overly complicated and cumbersome arguments, suggests that there is a great deal to be said for simplicity. On the other hand, I wonder if the liberal/conservative, left/right categories are outmoded given the decline of political parties and the rise of interest groups. This point is underscored further by the increasing popularity of broader social movements such as libertarianism and communitarianism, each of which draws on ideas traditionally associated with both the left and the right.
That said, the conservative/liberal approach does turn up one or two surprises. For instance, th book opens with a foreword by George F. Will - not quite what one expects in a book on the Sixties. Todd Gitlin, who is perhaps best known for his involvement (as a New Leftist) and analysis of "The Sixties" (indeed, as author of a book by the same name) is, as I mentioned, relegated to the afterword. This is no mere accident. For, the conclusion among the commentators is that culturally the Left has triumphed, whereas politically the Right is ascendant. Will informs us that contrary to conventional wisdom, "the decade of dissent began at a place not famous as a locus of tumult, the podium of a Republican National Convention."(p.7) Will's comment sets the stage - for a mixture of backlash from the Conservatives and somber evaluation by the Liberals.
More specifically, the book examines three key areas: Gender Roles, Sexuality, and the Family; the University and Education; and Race. I shall concentrate on the first section, although I should note that the essays in the second and third sections are equally worthy of consideration. Indeed, in general I would urge readers to look at the entire volume to get a sense of the various legacies of the Sixties, precisely so that they are able to gain an appreciation for the plurality of perspectives on the Sixties. This, after all, seems only fitting in a country as vast and diverse as the United States.
My sense of the first two essays in the section on Gender Roles, Sexuality, and the Family is one of disappointment. In an effort to be charitable I should note that Harvey Mansfield and Jeremy Rabkin provide a few isolated ideas that offer some insight. For instance, in his version of environmentalism (which he calls "school prayer for liberals"), Mansfield predicts that instead of adopting socialism "society will litigate corporations into submission."(p35) In general, however, both Mansfield's and Rabkin's attitude to the Sixties as a whole, and feminism in particular, is one of hostility and reduction. Mansfield is quite direct about his disgust, confessing "I suffered through the sixties and now live with their legacy at a university I once admired, and I feel a personal loss that sharpens the edge of my anger over what was done to our country."(p21.) Rabkin, meanwhile, characterizes feminism as a movement led by a group of spoiled, petulant schoolgirls throwing tantrums. This strikes me as insulting and simply wrong. Instead of directing women to follow nature (Mansfield) or asking us to recognize that for most American women there really weren't any serious problems ("America has had so little patriarchy") (Rabkin), Mansfield and Rabkin would be better served to take a closer look at different versions of feminism. To dismiss feminism, as Rabkin does, as being "imbued from the outset with the sixties' conviction that life need not involve any awkward choices" points to Rabkin's ignorance of the various strands within feminism, including numerous liberal and radical elements, rather than a deep insight produced by careful thought. This is comparable to dismissing all conservatism, all liberalism, or all democracy without consideration for the particular version of each of the theories as they are employed in the world. I for one would not wish to shrug off all feminist ideas or achievements and return to the home.
Instead, I would direct readers' attentions to Martha Nussbaum's essay, "Women and the Sixties." This is reminiscent of Marilyn French's The Women's Room. It begins with a survey of "the whole unacknowledged misery" found in suburban middle-class America, and moves on to an appreciation for the feminist revolution as part of a larger liberal revolution. Drawing on the political and moral philosophies of John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant, Nussbaum looks to a feminism that is grounded in individual autonomy and human rights. On this view feminism is concerned with choice and freedom, but also duties and responsibilities. While Nussbaum calls on democracy and democratic values (i.e equality) to further and complete the feminist project of the sixties, I imagine readers of this Newsletter would prefer to invoke liberalism and freedom. Still, many might benefit by emulating both the civil tone and the thoughtful content of Nussbaum's assessment.
Thirty years after the fact we are still debating the Sixties. In thirty years time will we find ourselves debating the Nineties? How will future generations regard our decade? Great strides have been made in communications and information dissemination, especially with the internet. But are there any legacies that we might compare to the Civil Rights movement of the Sixties? At present it is difficult to see beyond the cult of celebrity and scandal that pervades our culture. The Nineties are a decade dominated by scandals involving Clarence Thomas, OJ, and Bill Clinton. Right now it is too soon to tell. However, books like Reassessing the Sixties helps us to ask important questions about liberal democracy in America. Whether we are interested in answering them and acting on the answers we discover is up to us.