I had an unproductive writing week. I blame Glenn Beck.
Let me explain.
The Chronicle ran an item on June 11 about how F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, first published in 1944 and now published by the University of Chicago Press, became Amazon’s No. 1 best seller when Fox talk-show host Glenn Beck recommended the book.
Naturally I started to read about Hayek, about whom I knew ridiculously little, and then I fell asleep.
But when I awoke, I discovered that there was indeed a great deal to learn. I learned, for example, that George Orwell had reviewed The Road to Serfdom for the Observer in 1944. Since Orwell is on my syllabus (specifically, Keep the Aspidistra Flying, which teaches wonderfully, by the way, and makes a nice palate-cleanser between Woolf and Beckett, Sillitoe, or Spark). In his review, Orwell seems surprisingly sympathetic to Hayek’s position—in part because of the immediate politics of the time—and tells his readers that “Shortly, Professor Hayek’s thesis is that Socialism inevitably leads to despotism. … By bringing the whole of life under the control of the State, Socialism necessarily gives power to an inner ring of bureaucrats, who in almost every case will be men who want power for its own sake and will stick at nothing in order to retain it. … The only salvation lies in returning to an unplanned economy, free competition, and emphasis on liberty rather than on security. In the negative part of Professor Hayek’s thesis there is a great deal of truth. It cannot be said too often—at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough—that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamed of.”
But then I found myself needing to read what others have written about what Orwell wrote. That’s what got me into real trouble, and made me nap again. After all, I wasn’t sure which writers I should trust; my research into Orwell had not lead to me to Hayek in previous days but it had lead others there, for sure.
Should I, therefore, pay close attention to the quite compelling arguments (compelling, at least, after that wine I had to wake me up) made in 1997 by Martin Tyrell in “The Politics of George Orwell (1903-1950): From Tory Anarchism to National Socialism and More than Half Way Back” (Cultural Notes No. 36)? Tyrell says that Hillaire Belloc, of all people, is behind the whole shebang: “Hillaire Belloc is the author who connects Hayek and Orwell. ‘It must be about thirty years,’ Orwell wrote, ‘since Mr Hillaire Belloc, in his book The Servile State foretold with astonishing accuracy the things that are happening now.’ Hayek makes a similar observation: ‘It is not yet thirty years since Mr Hillaire Belloc explained that ‘the effect of socialist doctrine on capitalist society is to produce a third thing different from either of its two begetters—to wit, the servile state.’ And it is with a quotation from Belloc that the seventh chapter of The Road to Serfdom begins: ‘The control of the production of wealth is the control of human life itself.’”
After reading Tyrell, I started fretting about two things: Firstly, what kind of publication is published, as was “The Politics of George Orwell (1903-1950),” by The Libertarian Alliance (motto: “For Life, Liberty, and Property”) and, secondly, what is all this talk of Hillaire Belloc?
Then I must, of course, have more wine, find tiny bits of information concerning Hillaire Belloc (randomly sorting through whichever of his books I own, all of which are filled with rhymes), and nap further.
I wake to discover that his curious and spiteful poems—the writing I associate with Belloc—are not truly representative of his work, especially concerning economics. I discover that Raymond Williams has written abut Belloc’s ideas concerning economics, addressing them in a volume no less auspicious than Culture and Society, wherein Williams writes: “Belloc’s argument is that capitalism as a system is breaking down, and that this is to be welcomed. A society in which a minority owns and controls the means of production, while the majority are reduced to proletarian status, is not only wrong but unstable. Belloc sees it breaking down in two ways—on the one hand into State action for welfare (which pure capitalism cannot embody); on the other hand into monopoly and the restraint of trade. There are only two alternatives to this system: socialism, which Belloc calls collectivism; and the redistribution of property on a significant scale, which Belloc calls distributivism.”
Sleep overcomes me. I wake to learn that Belloc was also an anti-Semite who married an American. I vow to review my notes from grad school concerning Chesterton and H.G. Wells—I remember liking them; it was an interesting time. I used to teach Zulieka Dobson and was sad when it went out of print.
“Maybe if Glenn Beck reviewed Zulieka Dobson, or discussed Max Beerbohm generally, University of Chicago Press would get the book back into print and I could teach it again,” I think, and start drafting a letter to their editors, although I couldn’t find a name even after looking carefully through the Web site. They have several good books, however, and clearly aren’t just relying on Hayek to get them through the next season.
University presses are great; they will only get stronger.
I decide to write to Phyllis Deutsch at The University Press of New England and ask her about their new publications, too; I love UPNE.
And now you know why I haven’t done a post all week. Blame Glenn Beck.
Or get me on his show: Bitter could use a boost, too.
13 Responses to Glenn Beck, F.A. Hayek, and Me
rbannist - June 18, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Whether one agrees with Hayek’s thesis or not, his work is a good read to provoke thought and discussion about the direction of western culture. While it is good that his work has suddenly become the subject of much interest, it is distressing that Glenn Beck is the one who introduced his work so he could take bits and pieces out of context to promote his bizarre “the end is near” apocalyptic paranoid pseudo-liberatian faux-conservative demented outlook. Beck is a classic demogogue who goes for the emotional jugular above and beyond any sense of reason. While his constant harping to consider and learn history is a great idea, for anyone to think his raving chalkboard talks are good history lessons are sadly mistaken. Any serious student who had a decent US History teacher in the 11th grade will know his characterizations of the founding fathers as a council of dieties who were like-minded god-fearing superhumans is way off base. Sure, some of them were more religious or spiritually oriented than some modern historians would portray them to be, they were anything but what Beck pronounes. Even when Beck is right on an issue, the degree to which he sensationalizes the topic and puts it in a false context to serve his doomsday scenarios is very dangerous.Sadly, he feeds off a lot of frustration and alienation a wide section of middle class America is now feeling. When social conditions seem to be in decline and times are uncertain, the demogogues who capitalize on those raw emotions thrive.So let’s read Hayek and discuss his viewpoints and trivialize Beck to the status of media freak he deserves.
macheath - June 19, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Oh come on Gina. You’re blogging about a book and a set of topics that you have zero background in, and we get to read about your meanderings through the library? Stick to what you know–the disease of modern university English departments is that they apparently get to write about anything they want to, whether or not they have any expertise in it, just like Mark Bauerlein does in his conservative blogs on this site. I can see it now at the MLA–”oh, I haven’t read this book–here’s what I think of it.” “Oh, I haven’t read it either–but I read someone’s review of it and disagree with your interpretation of it.” Yikes.
ledzep - June 19, 2010 at 4:13 pm
@macheath – So you’re saying Prof. Barreca doesn’t have sufficient expertise to blog about something. Funny, I was under the impression that a blog is different than the proceedings of the MLA – silly me. I find this very refreshing: Prof. Barreca is genuinely curious about an odd conglomeration of texts that are mostly read by those with politics very different from her own. That kind of thing doesn’t need quashing by the discipline/expertise police, thank you very much.
rbannist - June 20, 2010 at 12:18 am
Why shouldn’t Professor Barreca write about someting outside her discipline? While I might not share her politics. Most would see me as conservative though I would distant myself from most factions in the Sarah Palin/Glenn Beck mold, but it’s refreshing to hear from folks with lots of different ideas and from different backgrounds. Especially on political trends, an outsider’s voice is most likely to cut through the institutional deceptions and ask really good questions.
lester_hunt - June 20, 2010 at 12:24 am
I have mixed feelings about Beck. On the one hand he says some goofy stuff and overdoes the anger thing. On the other hand — as an academic I find it heartening that the single most influential American at the present moment is a guy with a blackboard – who keeps telling people to read books. And frequently interviews academics in depth.PS Kudos to MS. Barreca for venturing outside her discipline. The world is coming apart and figuring out why will indeed require that we all do the same, tho’ with due humility I hope.
trendisnotdestiny - June 21, 2010 at 8:19 am
macheath,Stick to what you know is another way of saying = stay in your place, compartment and confines… Not only is this anti-feminist rhetoric, but also represents a colostomy bag of critical thinking. A couple quotes in support of Gina here “One cannot separate economics, political science and history. Politics is control of the economy. History, when accurately recorded, is that story. In most textbooks and classrooms, not only are these three fields of study separated, but they are further compartmentalized into separate sub-fields, obscuring the close connections between them.” J.W. Smith“The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe, themselves, to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.” – John Maynard Keynes(1935)
vangelv - June 22, 2010 at 11:00 am
I think that you are way over your head on this topic. Hayek’s writing is not all that difficult to figure out but that does not keep people with political agendas to create twisted interpretations of it. While Hayek can be an apologist for the state at times his position generally favours individual liberty and unhampered markets where the state sticks to protecting individuals from the initiation of force and fraud. He does not think it a good idea for the state to intervene and impose conditions on voluntary transactions. Hayek also pointed out that Fascism and Socialism are two opposite sides of the same totalitarian coin. Both movements attracted the power hungry and corrupt and ensured that the worst type of individuals would rise to the top. For evidence that he is right all you have to do is to look at the leadership of any major political party. Hayek, in the Road to Serfdom, and Orwell, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, were not making predictions about the future but were writing about the intensification of existing trends that were clearly visible to any objective viewer. It is important to note that Orwell was very upset at the way his novel was being interpreted in the United States, even by his own publisher. From his death bed he issued a statement that made it clear that Nineteen Eighty-Four was an analysis of what was possible, based on the political trends of his time. He noted that the danger posed by the structural changes that were necessity to prepare for total war with the USSR and noted the corrosive role of intellectuals when he wrote, “But danger also lies in the acceptance of a totalitarian outlook by intellectuals of all colours.” Like Hayek, Orwell worried that intellectuals had given up on the idea of fighting individual liberty because that got in the way of the needs of the state. From what I can see when I look at academia they were right.
vangelv - June 22, 2010 at 11:11 am
trendisnotdestiny wrote: “Not only is this anti-feminist rhetoric, but also represents a colostomy bag of critical thinking…”I must have missed the anti-feminist bit. It may be that you reading something that was not implied by the posting. My interpretation of the posting was very different. The way I read it, macheath did not believe that Gina’s understanding of Hayek is good enough to know what he is saying. From what I read of the original commentary that seems to be a true statement.
literarytype - June 22, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Gina should be on Glenn Beck. That would be a new definition of entertainment.
trendisnotdestiny - June 23, 2010 at 10:48 pm
vangelv,”Oh come on Gina. You’re blogging about a book and a set of topics that you have zero background in, and we get to read about your meanderings through the library? Stick to what you know”This is how power works, where authority/hierarchy are used to diminish her thoughts as other or “meanderings”… There is a tone of condescending brio as if to say: what could you, Gina possibly offer us enlightened people who know well enough to stay in our little compartments josseling for the scraps of credibility. Engage her actual ideas first before trying to small-mindedly reel her back into the abyss of “who cares what you think”… This is what I read into this comment
vangelv - June 24, 2010 at 2:10 pm
trendisnotdestiny”vangelv,”Oh come on Gina. You’re blogging about a book and a set of topics that you have zero background in, and we get to read about your meanderings through the library? Stick to what you know”This is how power works, where authority/hierarchy are used to diminish her thoughts as other or “meanderings”… There is a tone of condescending brio as if to say: what could you, Gina possibly offer us enlightened people who know well enough to stay in our little compartments josseling for the scraps of credibility. Engage her actual ideas first before trying to small-mindedly reel her back into the abyss of “who cares what you think”… This is what I read into this comment”First stop attributing quotes to the wrong individual. The quote came from macheath, not me. Second, instead of using emotional narrative try logic to deal with the points brought up. It seems clear to me that Gina is out of her element and comments on Hayek without being familiar with his work. Without knowing Hayek’s arguments all she can do is give us a personal opinion or refer us to the limited opinion of others. As I wrote above, even though he has extensive positions, Hayek’s general arguments and sentiment are not all that hard to figure out. All it takes is some hard work and careful attention to what he has actual written. Hayek argued that the West was degenerating and moving towards totalitarianism. When it came to liberty and the fate of the individual, Hayek did not see the National Socialism of Germany to be materially different from the Socialism being advocated by Western politicians, intellectuals and academics. They were the opposite sides of the same totalitarian coin. Unlike most academics today, Hayek understood that planned economies could not work as well as free markets. While his argument is not original–it was developed by his teacher Ludwig von Mises–even the socialist establisment finally threw in the towell and admitted that without the price information no effective economic calculation was possible. This means that in addition to being freedom deprived serfs, the individuals who were memebers of planned societies would also be very poor. The eglaitarianism favoured by Western academics would necessarily lead to less freedom and more misery. That is the essential idea and what Beck was probably trying to say. (I cannot be sure becasue I never saw the program.)If you really want to understand Hayek’s ideas I suggest that you take a look at the Austrian School of Economics. A good source of information is http://www.mises.org, where you can download most of the books, articles and papers written by Hayek. A short and entertaining explanation of the difference between Hayek’s economic ideas and those that are currently in favour with the statists who have been running your government can be found in the short video, Fear the Boom & the Bust, at the link below. http://www.econstories.tv/home.html
trendisnotdestiny - June 25, 2010 at 10:57 am
Vanclev, “First stop attributing quotes to the wrong individual.”I didn’t, you must of missed the anti-feminist comment’s you made in relation to my response to macheath… This does not surprise me as you refer to privileging logic over emotion to solve problems as well as take a real positivistic view of information exchange, but I digress…However, you are quite right that my later response was directed more at macheath, but vanclev, you assume much about the author/readers: 1) Often, we can know more than we can communicate (Polanyi, 1964)2) Hayek’s arguments are not hard to figure out (tear her down)3) She is out of here element (tear her down)4) Your longwinded condescending explanation of selected series of Von Hayek/Austrian School ideas which reminds me of that you could have played that role in Good Will Hunting in the bar scene in ‘the Hahvard’ bar (build yourself up as an authority)5) Suggesting that readers take a look at information as you have privileged yourself without gaining the respect and trust of the reader…. (this is called co-option: suggest inferior exchange, de-legitimate, authority through invocation and ending with a seemingly benevolent colonizing attitude of don’t thank me for the information (its what I do type shit)….Vanclev, granted this may be a bit harsh for the amount of thought you put into your post and probably much easier to ignore than engage, but this is quite frankly a sickening form of: The author is out of her league, I am quite comfortable telling people what the issues are, sit back and learn…. This is where the anti-feminist criticism seems most pertinent for your self-reflection…How you like them apples
vangelv - June 25, 2010 at 11:02 pm
trendisnotdestiny wrote:”I didn’t, you must of missed the anti-feminist comment’s you made in relation to my response to macheath…”I made no anti-feminist comments. I simply pointed out that you saw anti-feminist comments where none may have existed.trendisnotdestiny wrote:”This does not surprise me as you refer to privileging logic over emotion to solve problems as well as take a real positivistic view of information exchange, but I digress…”When debating facts or theory logic is important because without logic all you would have is noise. trendisnotdestiny wrote:”2) Hayek’s arguments are not hard to figure out (tear her down)”I think that in your eagerness for conflict you make assumptions that are not really supported by the facts. Hayek is not hard to figure out because he is a fairly clear writer so anyone who takes the time to read him will likely get a good idea of his ideas. That is not tearing anyone down. It is a call for actually doing some work before making comments. Without the work the comments cannot be very meaningful.trendisnotdestiny wrote:”3) She is out of here element (tear her down)”Again you look for conflict. It is a fact that Gina is out of her element. I do not imply that she could not understand Hayek’s version of Austrian Economics because, as I wrote above, Hayek writes very clearly if you pay attention to his words. Gina is capable of understanding what he writes but until she actually does the work necessary she will be out of her element.trendisnotdestiny wrote:”4) Your longwinded condescending explanation of selected series of Von Hayek/Austrian School ideas which reminds me of that you could have played that role in Good Will Hunting in the bar scene in ‘the Hahvard’ bar (build yourself up as an authority)”I am hardly ‘an authority.’ I am an engineer by training and only found Hayek by accident because most Western universities do not teach the economic ideas of the Austrian School. I found Hayek when an angry Chinese economist asked me to pick up a copy of a Mises book for him in a Hong Kong bookstore. He was on his third or forth ‘lost’ copy and was upset about how his colleagues never bothered to return books that they borrowed. At the time his bosses in Beijing were interested in why the Austrians were able to make accurate predictions while the Keynesians and Chicago School economists were unable to predict much of anything with any accuracy. I was somewhat bored so I asked him for a reading list and read Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, and many other Austrian authors. Because they write very clearly I have a good idea where the Austrian School stands on most issues and understand the disagreement within many of the members of the school. Gina or you would be just as capable of figuring out Hayek as I was but to do that you have to actually read him. Making comments by looking at what others claim Hayek says is pointless, particularly when many of the comments come from Keynesians who are trying to defend their failed theories or socialists or fascists who see the Austrian stance of liberty incompatible with their goals. trendisnotdestiny wrote:”5) Suggesting that readers take a look at information as you have privileged yourself without gaining the respect and trust of the reader…. (this is called co-option: suggest inferior exchange, de-legitimate, authority through invocation and ending with a seemingly benevolent colonizing attitude of don’t thank me for the information (its what I do type shit)….”You are confused. I merely ask the readers to actually read Hayek before they write about what Hayek said. That is plain common sense, something that you seem to have trouble with. trendisnotdestiny wrote:”Vanclev, granted this may be a bit harsh for the amount of thought you put into your post and probably much easier to ignore than engage, but this is quite frankly a sickening form of: The author is out of her league, I am quite comfortable telling people what the issues are, sit back and learn…. This is where the anti-feminist criticism seems most pertinent for your self-reflection…”The empirical evidence is clear. Gina is out of her league because she writes about a thinker and author that she is not familiar with. I do not know about you but I do not consider it very credible when a person speculates on a subject with which s/he is not familiar with. That having been said, I do not see Gina claiming to be an expert on Hayek and do not believe that my pointing out the obvious is what is bothering you. What I see from you is someone who prefers emotion and conflict to logic and clear thinking. Perhaps that is why you keep seeing anti-feminist criticism where none exists. Of course, if you try to define feminism as abandoning logic and pretending to know something when you do not, you could be correct. But that is not how I (or most people) would define it.