AMERICAN ESTABliSHMENT
109
tarian society, they failed to observe that in the past the introduction of
culture to a new class has always been accompanied by regression as
well as advance ; and they ignored almost completely the
nature
of the
education and the culture now available to the population as a whole.
Thus, in comparison with the sociological critics, the sociologists had
one big advantage : they did not bring with them any prejudices against
"mass" or "middlebrow" culture. They presented themselves simply as
social scientists investigating new cultural forms, and, except for a na–
tural dedication to progress, they claimed to
be
thoroughly objective and
disinterested. But we know that disinterestedness often cloaks a bias,
and in the case of the sociologists it can certainly be said that many of
them have gone beyond the call of scientific duty in taking a rosy view
of the situation.
If,
as they claim, they are really concerned with devel–
oping a constructive attitude toward American culture, they would do
better to dissociate themselves from its failings while identifying with
its achievements.
An example of the scientific approach
is
a recent attempt by Sey–
mour Lipset to prove that the degree of anti-intellectualism in America
has been greatly exaggerated
(Encounter,
April, 1957). So far as I can
judge, Lipset has done good work in other areas, but this article, which
modestly begins by reporting the results of a poll, ends in the most
transparent cultural apologetics. It seems, according to Lipset, that a
number of people, asked what their favorite professions were, ranked
the college professor fifth, the "artist who paints pictures to exhibit in
a picture gallery" twelfth, the "musician in a symphony orchestra" four–
teenth, and the "author of novels" fifteenth. Lipset also cites another
poll showing that intellectuals have much the same rating in Japan,
Great Britain, Denmark, Australia. Now I am not competent to dispute
these polling techniques, but it should be obvious even to an amateur
that the "data" they 'yield have little to do with the question of anti–
intellectualism. They merely rank certain accepted professions. How
about the young poet, the literary critic, the esoteric musician, the
avant-gardist who has not yet made it? Surely we do not need a poll
to tell us that Pearl Buck or Earle Stanley Gardner rank high in the
esteem of their countrymen, or that professors who are nothing but
technicians in some useful field are prized by government and industry.
But Lipset really gives the show away in the course of explaining why
American intellectuals persist in their delusions about anti-intellectualism.
He grants that mass culture is on the rise, that there is a "lowering of
overall levels of taste," and that intellectuals are cut off from the rest
of the "elite," especially from those who yield political power, at least
