BOOKS
211
still contain the vital possibility of fundamental reform? Goodman
answers No to the first question and' Yes to the second. The ills
of our society are "by no means inherent in modem technological
or ecological conditions." Indeed "they have followed precisely
from the betrayal and neglect of the old liberal-radical program."
Mr. Goodman's indictment of our abundant society is that
it
is
"lacking in enough man's work.
It
is lacking in honest public
speech, and people are not taken seriously. It is lacking in the
opportunity to be useful. It thwarts aptitude and creates stupidity.
It
corrupts ingenuQus patriotism. It corrupts the fine arts. It
shackles science. It dampens animal ardor. It discourages the
religious convictions of Justification and Vocation and it dims
the sense that there is a Creation.
It
has no Honor. It has no
Community." Apart from its truth, I find this very refreshing
indeed, because most of us are too sophisticated to have written
it or thought it, at least in Goodman's words. And what other
contemporary intellectual would come out unblushingly in favor
of "excellence and manliness" or say that those who influence
boys must be "knightly." We all believe and know these things,
but we fear that to say them out loud would be to evoke the
superior smile. Yet Mr. Goodman's way of expressing himself
merely commands our assent.
As
I have said, Mr. Goodman
is
out to discover the con–
nections between two phenomena: "the Organized System of
semimonopolies, government, advertisers, etc." and "the disaffec–
tion of the growing generation." He examines the mixed vitality
and futility of the Beat and Angry young men, who are in re–
action against the Organization but who preserve or rediscover
certain possibilities of freedom, spontaneity, and flexibility. He ex–
amines, also, the ethos, the taboos, rules, and status symbols of
the adolescent street gangs, who although, or perhaps
because,
they are in more rigid and desperate reaction to the Organized
System live by codes strikingly analogous to the System's own
kinds of conformity. Goodman easily disposes of the more facile
prescriptions for improving the young. For example, he finds
but a half truth in the familiar idea of pulpit moralists and police
chiefs that "the family" must bear the blame for the delinquency
of its young. The family should not and cannot bear the whole
