Jews in the American Academy, 1900-1940: The Dynamics of Intellectual Assimilation (1991)

Susanne Klingenstein wrote:

Being a transnational philologist was for [Leo] Wiener‘s mind what being a farmer was for his body: it eased tension. And it rooted the self — in the soil and in humanity… He did not belong [at Harvard]…

Wiener’s loving, romantic view of the Russian people stands in sharp contrast to his distanced, occasionally negative attitude toward his own people. …Wiener was an advocate of assimilation on the national as well as the international level…

Wiener’s political stance and his psychological needs are hardly separable. He was restless, discontent, and he lacked patience with those surrounding him… Just as Wiener was opposed to the separate existence of Jews within another nation, he was opposed to their forming a separate state…

Leo Wiener tried hard to overcome his descent in the “freedom” of America. He did not recognize that in some parts…”America” was merely an idea… It is hard to say how much he was aware of his failure to bridge the gap between them [Harvard’s WASP establishment] and himself. It is obvious that he reacted to the psychological pressures that his displacement created. He tried to root himself firmly in the ground, in America’s welcoming soil, and simultaneously in the realm he shared with all mankind — language.

Posted in Academia, Jews | Comments Off on Jews in the American Academy, 1900-1940: The Dynamics of Intellectual Assimilation (1991)

The Danger Of Online Feuds

Ezra Klein told Mark Leibovitch in 2022:

And something about the back-and-forth of stepping out for Trump a bit, then getting this blowback, then stepping out a bit more and getting this blowback. And soon your friends are totally different, your enemies are totally different, who likes you is different. And I’ve watched this in politicians before as a psychological dynamic. And I’ve actually seen it in pundits too. As a psychological dynamic, this is often a pathway to a very different politics in three years. You can look at a Glenn Greenwald…

Aaron Renn writes Nov. 14, 2022:

Imagine David French back in 2019. He’s minding his own business, standing in line for his caffe latte at Starbucks. His phone beeps and it’s a Google Alert, or perhaps a friend texting him to say “check this out.” The subject is an article in First Things, the leading conservative religious journal in the country, called “Against David French-ism,” written by fellow conservative Sohrab Ahmari. Then thousands of people pile on saying how much they agree with Sohrab Ahmari about French and his approach being what’s wrong with the world.

Do you really think you’d respond any differently than he did? We’d probably all respond basically the same. Nothing is more natural than to want to defend your honor when attacked, especially if you are a man…

Add to this mix an additional ingredient, where a group of people start sending us messages and tweets of support, taking our side and saying what a great guy we were. Wouldn’t that incline us to want to align ourselves with the people who had our back? Undoubtedly it would, even if we hadn’t historically been that friendly with them.

This is especially the case for people who were “cancelled.” They often fall into more extreme or radical politics simply because those are the only people who will still accept them. So keep in mind that if we throw a friend under the cancel mob bus, we may not like the people who don’t abandon them.

Posted in Aaron Renn | Comments Off on The Danger Of Online Feuds

Feuds & Reconciliation

Aaron Renn writes Oct. 22, 2024:

These disputes not only affect us psychologically, they also affect our intellectual positions, political positions, the tribes we associate with, etc. Seldom are the results for the better. As someone once told me of the David French-Sohrab Ahmari feud, “It turned both of them into worse versions of themselves.”…

Have you ever noticed that many alpha male types often, after a very public conflict with someone, get it settled and and move on? Sometimes they even strangely end up as friends. Republican megadonor Paul Singer was a Never Trumper in 2016. I sat at a gala and personally listened to him say that neither Trump nor Clinton were the right choice. But after Trump won, Singer went to Trump and made up with him. Why? Because he’s a smart, tough businessman who deals in reality. He didn’t let his pride marginalize him inside of a Trump administration. Similarly, we just watched Trump and Chuck Schumer getting along at the Al Smith Dinner in New York. That doesn’t mean Singer and Schumer are capitulating to everything Trump wants. They are going to keep fighting for what they want. But they see the value in not letting feuds compromise that.

The higher you go in society, the more likely people are to end feuds and work productively with – and even be somewhat friendly with – people on the other side.

Posted in Aaron Renn | Comments Off on Feuds & Reconciliation

The Bug Out Mindset

Aaron Renn writes Oct. 3, 2024:

The rich are first in line here. They are building bunkers, and also acquiring massive ranches and other amounts of rural land. They are also among the people acquiring multiple passports. CNBC did an article earlier this year about the rich acquiring “passport portfolios.”

Another more mass market phenomenon is the large amount of interest in “prepping” (disaster preparation) is in line with this.

…the huge number of people preparing for a major social collapse is notable. Nobody did this when I was younger.

We also see a related interest in primitive or survival skills. There are lots of places you can take classes to learn this stuff, TV shows oriented around them, etc.

Some people are pre-deploying these skills by moving to rural areas and homesteading, often trying to do so using pre-industrial techniques.

Posted in America | Comments Off on The Bug Out Mindset

Why Men Hate Going to Church

Aaron Renn writes Oct. 1, 2024:

young men could become the new “customer” of the church. David Murrow wrote a great book called Why Men Hate Going to Church. He noted that since there was such a female gender skew in the church, and an even greater skew in the consumption of Christian media, Christian organizations de facto treated women as their main customer base. Even for married couples, it was usually the wife who determined where the family attended church, and thus where the tithe money went. As a result the culture of the evangelical world was oriented around female preferences.

If the church becomes more male, and those men are the assertive type I describe above, this will put pressure on churches to be oriented more towards their preferences. Religion in the US is fundamentally a marketplace, as many people have noted. If men start being the ones making the decision about where to go to church, either as singles or families, that could have profound implications for the way things are done. And which churches succeed or fail in an era of religious decline.

Posted in Christianity | Comments Off on Why Men Hate Going to Church