AMERICAN ESTABLISHMENT
III
of popular culture but with Shils's own views and with the questions
themselves.
Now, on the surface, Shils's posItIOn appears reasonable, and
in
many respects right. His distinction, for example, between "mass" and
"middle" culture is a much needed one, and he is certainly correct in
maintaining that the more popular forms pose the smallest threat to
the arts because they have so little in common with them. What I
think
is wrong with Shils's position is that it has no stakes in that world which
sustains serious, advanced intellectual and creative effort, no stakes,
that is, beyond the fact that Shils is naturally in favor of its achieve-
. ments. He is really concerned with the welfare of the culture as a
whole-the culture in an anthropological sense, hence he
is
interested
not so much in promoting "high" or "advanced" culture as in mini–
mizing the difficulties under which it labors in our society. In all fair–
ness, it should he said that Shils
is
concerned with the perpetuation of
the cultural tradition, but this he assumes to be the job of individual
talent, every man on his own. And if intellectuals lower their standards
-as, according to Shils, they apparently are doing-they have no one
to blame but themselves. "The root of the trouble lies not in mass cul–
ture but in the intellectuals themselves. The seduction and corruption
of intellectuals are not new, although it is true that mass culture is a
new opportunity for such degradation." Logically, of course, this is true;
one need not yield to the pressures of his culture-whether they be
"mass" or "middle"-but I am sure Mr. Shils would not deny that the
kind of art and thought produced at any given time is very much af–
fected by the total social and intellectual situation. Besides our problem
is not to measure the moral stamina of intellectuals or to give pep-talks
to keep them pure; on the contrary, our problem is to assess the forces
that seduce or corrupt intellectuals and generally debase the culture, and
it is precisely this problem that Shils evades by constructing an idyllic
picture of social and artistic progress.
Shils does grant that philistinism and commercalism in education
and literary journalism as in mass entertainment have some bad
effect on intellectual life. But his commitment to the cultural order is
so strong and his view of history so optimistic that he regards the most
virulent aspects of popular and middle culture as temporary setbacks
in the growth of democratic society, which by definition bring:s more
comfort and culture to more people. "The reading of good books," says
Shils, "the enjoyment of superior music and painting, although perhaps
meagre, is certainly more widespread now than in previous centuries, and
there is no reason to believe that it is less profound or less genuine.
