BOOKS
157
ety, so that they can act democratically." But when he defines this high
culture as "open" and "pluralist," it is a most feeble attempt to resolve
the problem of the exclusive and antidemocratic nature of high culture.
Fortunately for his critics, he pleads guilty to their inevitable accusations:
"Populists, both of the left and the right, will argue that my position is
elitist." It is a memorable idea indeed to locate genuine democratic dis–
course within the confines of elitist high culture, thereby excluding from
participation in the debate the two hundred million Americans who
might watch television or attend baseball games. Tocqueville, by the
way, believed that "high culture" could exist only in an aristocratic
society. In a democracy, by contrast, the goal of public culture was to
draw all citizens into the political process, to insure their political
education in order to facilitate their participation in the nation's
political life.
What I find especially unfortunate about Goldfarb's misguided solu–
tion to the problem of the "decline" in American public discourse is
first, a failure to understand that, as far as democracy and high culture are
concerned, one has nothing to do with the other. And second, a failure
to understand the function of language . The purpose of language is to
communicate. Simply put, language - especially "public discourse" and
debate about the common good - must be open and accessible to all,
educated and uneducated, rich and poor. Using language to exclude
people - whether in the name of "cultural excellence" or protection
from mass consumer society - is using it as a weapon. The goal of public
discourse about democracy is to promote mutual understanding, not to
deepen class divisions.
Talk in public and in private about the public good is one necessary
condition for a "good society," a fundamental way to discover the
bonds that unite us, our overlapping traditions, our ideas about what
democracy and the common good mean. But there are also less intellec–
tual
and less verbal ways to arrive at mutual understanding. In his com–
pelling study,
Acts of Compassion,
the sociologist Robert Wuthnow ar–
gues
that what can unite people who intellectually might not agree on a
specific notion of the good may be
caring
rather than
talking.
Through
caring about their fellow citizens, Americans act out rather than talk
about the common good. Wuthnow's thesis is that most American citi–
zens actively participate in a community that they define in terms of
people caring for each other, that this type of community gives meaning
to
their lives and that they depend on it for their very identities. Robert
Bellah also addressed this question of caring in society, but he diagnosed
