200
PARTISAN REVIEW
Peter Berger:
I would like to say what in my mind has come out of
this morning's discussion. And that is a question which has bothered me
for about twenty years or more. I very much agree with Claudio about
the basic structure of the modern paradigm which is spreading through
the modern world. It seems to me the question is, and I think this is
raised very much by Ricardo Arias Calderon, what modification of this is
feasible? And if so, how can these modifications be regionalized, which is
the question you asked. Could there be a Latin America with modifica–
tion? Or an Islamic one? That to me is an open question. And I don't
think that Claudio closes it. He does talk about the future in a sense, be–
cause he says it is unstoppable. Maybe it is unstoppable, but can it be
slightly diverted?
Brigitte Berger:
I do think that the two different cognitive styles, the
Gothic versus the Baroque, are coexistent in every society. One does not
exclude the other. And within society there is always this tension be–
tween the two cognitive styles. For that reason you do have organized
culture and popular culture, as we are marching through the modern
world. But if one would take a slightly different model, whereby one
sees these two cognitive styles as always in juxtaposition, then one could
also argue that the so-called English world of cognitive styles is con–
stantly subject to pressures: it can also change towards the Baroque style.
For example, the current Gothic administration in Washington, and of
course the recent national elections, really illustrate a conflict between
different cognitive styles. In other words, Claudio has found something
of utmost importance: the insistence of certain kinds of cognitive styles,
once they have been fused over the centuries. Yet it is not only internal
change but also the externals of institutional structures such as politics
and economics that constantly impinge. The same thing could be said
using a model with very simple terms, as Claudio has done.
Liah Greenfeld:
I do not think it is useful to regard Claudio's two
metaphors as hypotheses. Metaphors are by definition false, as was noted
earlier, and the main characteristic of a hypothesis is that it should be
able to be proven true or false. I think nevertheless that the two speakers
this morning took it too seriously, and therefore criticized the
metaphors on the basis of their being hypotheses - which they are not.
They were metaphors. But I would like to address the use of metaphors
for historical and sociological explanations. Metaphor is always false, and
this is its strength rather than its weakness. Historical generalization is
also always false because, in reality, we simply cannot take in every detail
of its messiness. Nevertheless, and because of that, we need generaliza-
