442
PARTISAN REVIEW
kill, in some degree, the thing he loves. Not enough of our literary in–
tellectuals are seeing enough of America to achieve the basis for an
informed new attitude.
As
to whether American intellectuals must adapt themselves–
that is, give in to-mass culture, I would think not. The real problem,
however, is more complex, the real problem is how to avoid con–
tamination without avoiding contact. For if American intellectuals
are to be of use, they must-without adapting themselves to mass cul–
ture-yet associate themselves with American life. The ideal national
culture is surely away from democratization, from leveling off, in
favor of becoming as sound as possible at varying levels. There should
be certain good things that all levels can share, and respect- be–
tween levels-for the good things they cannot. The ideal culture has
the classic pyramidal structure; the sense of cream at the top but yet
of a single social milk bottle. And this structure is of importance to
intellectuals, not for matey or pseudo-democratic reasons, but for
precisely opposite ones: because the healthy "aristocrat," the vigorous
Renaissance man, identified privilege with participation, not with
withdrawal; identified sensibility with heightened living, not with
squeamishness. Highbrow culture today seems in danger of mistaking
a narrow scope for an exalted level. The taste and sensibility that are
the marks of true cultivation are one thing; but they differ radically
from the jargon and over-intellectualizing that seem at times to be
covering up for not sensibility enough. Besides, the present passion
for labeling everything indicates an intellectual class in too great
need of labels; one that in shying away from mass culture may be
shying away from much genuine culture as well-from much that,
whatever the final verdict, must at least be taken into account. For all
that was faddish and excessive about it, the spirit of the Seven
Lively Arts in the '20s was more healthful and educative and produc–
tive than today's sniffy attitude toward whatever might be "popular,"
than today's approach to books or pictures as things to be "experi–
enced" rather than discriminatingly enjoyed.
But the trouble isn't just intellectual snobbery or a worry over
backing the wrong horse: it springs also out of an intense current
fear of the trivial, of the minor: so that no one asks how good some–
thing is on its own terms, or whether it has distinction; but only how
central or integral or symptomatic it is, and whether it has im-
