BRIGITTE BERGER
519
dangers. The first relates to its disregard, if not disavowal, of a distinctive
organization of knowledge
(what
is to be studied) and a distinctive cog–
nitive style
(how
it is to be studied), both of which not only hold differ–
ent academic disciplines together but also are important to the entire
fabric of the modern university. The second danger relates to the multi–
culturalist paradigm's denial of the importance of the "radical individual–
ism" that serves as an essential underpinning to the modern academic en–
terprise. And the third danger relates to a fundamental relativization, if
not rejection, of the unique civilatory achievements of the Western uni–
versity itself. If these dangers are left unchallenged and the multicultural
paradigm should become the new reality of academic life, the first will
lead to the final undermining of the autonomy of the modern university;
the second to a retribalization of American society and thereby to a re–
peal of the principles on which this nation is founded; and finally, as the
first two combine and take on a dynamics of their own, a massive dele–
gitimation of the modern university - and by extension of Western civi–
lization itself - is sure to follow. All three dimensions are closely inter–
connected historically and functionally in a complex set of ways, and it
may well be argued that the fate of the modern university and the fate of
Western civilization are inextricably intertwined. Let me spell out in
some detail why this is so.
As generations of historians have shown, the modern university is a
unique institution. It is a distinctly Western and, at the same time, a dis–
tinctly modern creation which did not simply fall from heaven, nor did
it rise out of hell. It most certainly is not merely a concoction of
power-hungry dead white males who sought to secure their privileges
and to lord it over the ignorant masses. Rather, it is the consequence of
very long processes which led individuals to think in new ways about
theiJ relationship to God, nature, their communities, and, ultimately,
themselves. As Eric Voegelin has shown, we can locate these processes as
far back as in the prophetic writings of the Hebrew Bible, the philo–
sophical and literary texts of Greek antiquity, and the religious scriptures
of a triumphant Christianity. Central to this slowly emerging and often
contested way of thinking has been the idea of an autonomous individ–
ual who, not inherently embedded in religion, nature, and community, is
capable of overcoming the constraints flowing from them and even of
turning against them. These cognitive predispositions have provided fun–
damental commonalities to the civilizations of the West, in spite of vast
differences in history and culture and the many bloody wars fought
among them.
It is precisely these cognitive predispositions, it can be argued, that
have provided the West with its "creative potential," allowing it to
