PARTISAN REVIEW
419
radical thinking. Also, when he takes down those who "keep a distance"
from the young, are we to infer that the only thing to do is to dissolve
oneself in some ideal radicalism, found mostly in youth? In his analysis
of Rubin, Bersani speaks of him as being "politically explosive" without
considering that he might be also politically ineffectual or harmful to the
radical cause. Nor does he consider that Rubin - and Hoffman - might
even be unpolitical yet have a political effect.
In fact, for both 'Brooks and Bersani there has been a suspension
of what
is
nonnally considered to be political thinking. And this, it seems
to me, is because their approach is primarily literary, not political. They
both talk about meaning and metaphor and symbol and style and thea–
ter and language. Brooks uses esoteric tenus like "tenor" and "vehicle,"
which one associates with the special vocabulary of John Crowe Ran–
some and the so-called New Critics. He goes so far as to say "we didn't
possess the fonns for dealing with what we were facing ... That was
perhaps one definition of a revolutionary situation" - a definition trans–
planted from avant-garde literary criticism and not very useful for as–
sessing the strength of a political system or the forces challenging it.
Similarly, the question of violence which radical theory has always
treated as a tactic - and usually rejected until the situation was ripe
for it - becomes for Brooks a matter of essence, "ingrained in Amer–
ican society," and hence a genre of pennanent radical activity. Such
an approach naturally reduces substantive issues to stylistic ones. And
it
is
essentially the "style" of Hoffman and Rubin to which Bersani is
drawn, as though it were some model radical style, particularly for the
young. This is, of course, a legitimate expression of taste, but, unfor–
tunately political taste of this kind often indicates a political opinion,
though neither Hrooks nor Bersani seem willing to face up to this - any
more than those conservatives and liberals who express their
politics
by
a distaste for the style of the Left will admit to an aesthetic ,reading of
politics.
The trouble with substituting literary criticism for politics is that
it overvalues literature and undervalues politics. And while it makes us
aesthetically sympathetic to new movements it leaves us without a polit–
ical center of our own, thus converting us into automatic fellow-travelers
of anything new, wild and exciting. Unlike literature, politics has to
be more than shocking; it has to be persuasive and effective. The fact
that accepted politics
is
often insane doesn't justify craziness in the op–
position. We should, for example, examine the Panthers' doctrines as
well as their style. One also has to ask whether Abbie's liberating antics
don't have more to do with prudery than with politics, and whether the
system really trembles when he takes off his shirt on television.
As things are today, Bersani's and Brooks's openness is certainly
more attractive and more useful than the smugness of those who make
a principled attack on the new nonsense in the name of the old non–
sense. But this might not be enough. For the weathervane may not be
much more reliable than the pendulum.
w.
P.
(Replies and comments will appear in future issues. Readers are invited to
participate. )
