The “German Historians’ Dispute” (German: Historikerstreit)

Posted on March 21, 2025 by Luke Ford

Google notes: “The “German Historians’ Dispute” (German: Historikerstreit) was a highly publicized and controversial debate among German historians in the late 1980s and early 1990s, primarily sparked by the publication of a controversial article in 1986 that downplayed the severity of the Holocaust.”

Grok says:

The “German Historians’ Dispute” (Historikerstreit) was a significant intellectual and political controversy in West Germany during the late 1980s and early 1990s, centered on how the Nazi past, particularly the Holocaust, should be interpreted and integrated into German historiography and national identity. The debate, while sprawling and multifaceted, was ignited by a specific article published in 1986 that challenged the prevailing understanding of the Holocaust’s uniqueness, prompting a fierce clash between conservative and left-leaning historians. Below, I’ll analyze the origins, key arguments, participants, and implications of the Historikerstreit, with a focus on the 1986 article and its role in downplaying the Holocaust’s severity.
Origins and the 1986 Article
The Historikerstreit erupted on June 6, 1986, with the publication of Ernst Nolte’s article “Vergangenheit, die nicht vergehen will” (“The Past That Will Not Pass”) in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Nolte, a prominent conservative historian, argued that the Holocaust should not be treated as a singular, unparalleled event in history. He suggested that Nazi crimes, including the extermination of Jews, were a reactive response to the Bolshevik threat, particularly the Soviet Gulags under Stalin, which he claimed preceded and inspired Nazi atrocities. Nolte’s thesis implied a causal link—positing that the Nazis’ actions were a defensive imitation of Soviet terror rather than an ideologically driven genocide rooted in anti-Semitism. This framing effectively downplayed the Holocaust’s severity by relativizing it as one among many 20th-century atrocities, rather than an event of unique moral and historical weight.
Nolte’s article was not an isolated provocation but built on ideas he had floated earlier, such as in his 1980 essay “Between Myth and Revisionism.” However, its publication in 1986, amid a conservative political climate under Chancellor Helmut Kohl, amplified its impact. Kohl’s administration sought to “normalize” Germany’s Nazi past, as seen in events like the 1985 Bitburg ceremony, where President Ronald Reagan honored German war dead, including Waffen-SS members, alongside Kohl. Nolte’s piece aligned with this broader push to lighten the burden of German guilt, making it a lightning rod for controversy.
Key Arguments and Participants
The Historikerstreit pitted two broad camps against each other: conservative historians, who favored a comparative approach to totalitarian regimes, and left-leaning intellectuals, who insisted on the Holocaust’s singularity and Germany’s unique responsibility.
Conservative Perspective: Nolte was joined by historians like Andreas Hillgruber, Michael Stürmer, and Joachim Fest. Hillgruber’s 1986 book Zweierlei Untergang (“Two Kinds of Downfall”) juxtaposed the destruction of the German Reich with the Holocaust, lamenting the expulsion of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe as a tragedy comparable to the Jewish genocide. Stürmer, a Kohl advisor, argued in his essay “Land without History” that Germany needed a positive historical narrative to foster national pride, implicitly downplaying the Nazi era’s centrality. These historians sought to contextualize the Holocaust within a broader history of 20th-century violence, often comparing it to Stalinist crimes to dilute its exceptional status. Critics accused them of revisionism and apologetics, claiming this approach minimized Nazi culpability.

Left-Wing Response: The most prominent counterattack came from philosopher Jürgen Habermas, who, in a July 1986 Die Zeit article titled “Eine Art Schadensabwicklung” (“A Kind of Damage Control”), accused Nolte, Hillgruber, and Stürmer of whitewashing history to serve neoconservative ends. Habermas argued that their relativization of the Holocaust undermined Germany’s post-1945 moral reckoning and its integration into Western democratic values. Historians like Hans-Ulrich Wehler, Jürgen Kocka, and Hans Mommsen echoed Habermas, defending the Sonderweg thesis—that Germany’s historical path uniquely culminated in Nazism—and rejecting comparisons that diluted the Holocaust’s ideological specificity. They saw Nolte’s thesis as a dangerous step toward normalizing the Nazi past.

The debate was marked by vitriol, with ad hominem attacks and accusations of bad faith flying in newspapers like Die Zeit and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. It wasn’t just academic; it gripped public attention, reflecting broader anxieties about Germany’s identity in a Cold War context nearing its end.
Downplaying the Holocaust
Nolte’s 1986 article explicitly downplayed the Holocaust’s severity by framing it as a derivative act rather than a premeditated, ideologically driven genocide. His claim that the Gulags provided a “precedent” for Auschwitz shifted focus from Nazi anti-Semitism to a supposed existential threat from communism, implying that Hitler’s regime was reacting rather than initiating. This relativization reduced the Holocaust’s moral gravity, portraying it as a byproduct of wartime escalation rather than a deliberate extermination campaign. Hillgruber’s work complemented this by equating German suffering with Jewish victimhood, further blurring the lines between perpetrator and victim narratives. Such arguments challenged the post-war consensus that the Holocaust was a uniquely German crime requiring perpetual atonement.
Critics, however, saw this as a distortion. The Holocaust’s scale (six million Jews systematically murdered), its industrial efficiency (gas chambers, death camps), and its ideological core (racial anti-Semitism) set it apart from Soviet atrocities, which, while horrific, lacked the same genocidal intent toward a specific ethnic group. By suggesting equivalence, Nolte and his allies risked trivializing the Shoah’s distinctiveness.
Implications and Legacy
The Historikerstreit had lasting repercussions. It exposed deep divisions over Germany’s “usable past” at a time when reunification loomed on the horizon (achieved in 1990). Habermas and the left largely prevailed in shaping public memory, cementing the Holocaust’s centrality in German identity and reinforcing a culture of responsibility that became state policy in the 1990s—evident in landmarks like the 2005 Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe. Nolte’s ideas, while influential among some right-wing circles, were widely discredited in mainstream academia for their lack of empirical rigor and apparent apologetics.
Yet the debate also highlighted the tension between historical comparison and moral clarity. While comparative history is a valid tool, the Historikerstreit showed how it can slide into relativism when wielded to deflect responsibility. Nolte’s 1986 article, by downplaying the Holocaust’s severity, forced Germany to confront how it narrates its past—a question that remains relevant as new debates, like those over colonial legacies, emerge today.
Conclusion
The Historikerstreit, sparked by Nolte’s 1986 article, was a battle over memory as much as history. It revealed the stakes of interpreting the Holocaust: not just an academic exercise, but a moral and political act shaping Germany’s self-understanding. By attempting to downplay the Holocaust’s severity, Nolte and his allies triggered a backlash that reaffirmed its uniqueness, ensuring that Germany’s Nazi past would not be easily relativized or forgotten. The dispute’s intensity and public reach underscore its role as a defining moment in late 20th-century German intellectual life.

So who won and who lost in this controversy?

Determining “winners” and “losers” in the Historikerstreit depends on the lens—academic influence, public perception, or long-term impact on German memory culture. Here’s a breakdown based on these dimensions, rooted in the debate’s outcomes and legacy.
The “Winners”: Habermas and the Left-Leaning Historians
Jürgen Habermas and his allies—figures like Hans-Ulrich Wehler, Jürgen Kocka, and Hans Mommsen—emerged as the prevailing voices in the Historikerstreit, particularly in shaping mainstream discourse and policy.
Academic Triumph: Habermas’s critique, articulated in his 1986 Die Zeit article, framed Nolte’s relativization as a neoconservative attempt to sanitize Germany’s past. This resonated with the scholarly consensus, which upheld the Holocaust’s uniqueness and rejected Nolte’s causal link to Soviet atrocities as speculative and empirically weak. Left-leaning historians successfully defended the Sonderweg thesis and the idea of German historical responsibility, maintaining their dominance in universities and intellectual circles.

Public Opinion: The debate, waged in widely read newspapers, galvanized public support for the left’s position. Nolte’s arguments were perceived as revisionist and apologetic, alienating many Germans who saw Holocaust remembrance as a moral cornerstone of post-war identity. Habermas’s call for a critical, self-reflective national memory aligned with the broader societal push to confront rather than downplay the Nazi era.

Long-Term Impact: The left’s victory is most evident in Germany’s memory culture post-reunification. The 1990s and 2000s saw institutional reinforcement of Holocaust centrality—e.g., the 1999 parliamentary resolution affirming German guilt and the 2005 opening of the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin. These developments reflect Habermas’s vision of a Germany integrated into Western values through accountability, not normalization of its past.

The “Losers”: Nolte and the Conservative Historians
Ernst Nolte, along with Andreas Hillgruber, Michael Stürmer, and their supporters, largely lost the debate in terms of credibility and influence.
Academic Marginalization: Nolte’s thesis—that the Holocaust was a reaction to Bolshevik terror—was widely discredited for lacking historical evidence and for its apparent exculpatory tone. His peers accused him of cherry-picking sources and ignoring the ideological roots of Nazi anti-Semitism. Hillgruber’s juxtaposition of German and Jewish suffering was similarly criticized as a false equivalence, while Stürmer’s plea for a positive national history was seen as politically motivated rather than scholarly. By the early 1990s, Nolte’s reputation in mainstream academia had plummeted, relegating his ideas to fringe right-wing circles.

Public Backlash: The conservative camp underestimated the German public’s sensitivity to Holocaust minimization. Nolte’s 1986 article, intended to provoke, instead sparked outrage, with critics labeling it a step toward historical revisionism akin to Holocaust denial (though Nolte never denied the event itself). This backlash tarnished the conservatives’ moral standing, especially as their views were tied to Kohl’s controversial “normalization” efforts, like the Bitburg fiasco.

Policy Defeat: The conservative push to lighten the burden of Nazi guilt failed to reshape official memory. While Kohl’s government initially supported a less contrite narrative, the Historikerstreit’s fallout—coupled with reunification’s demands for a unified identity—solidified a state-backed commitment to Holocaust remembrance. Nolte’s ideas found little traction beyond intellectual debates, and the conservatives’ broader project of historical relativism stalled.

Nuances and Caveats
Partial Conservative Influence: While they lost the main battle, Nolte and his allies influenced niche discussions. Their comparative approach to totalitarianism gained some traction in conservative think tanks and among historians studying Soviet crimes, though it never overrode the Holocaust’s exceptional status in German discourse.

Ongoing Tension: The Historikerstreit didn’t fully resolve the underlying question of how Germany balances its past with national pride. The conservatives’ defeat entrenched a guilt-focused narrative, but debates over “normalization” resurface periodically—e.g., in discussions about Germany’s colonial history or its role in modern Europe.

Conclusion
Habermas and the left-leaning historians “won” the Historikerstreit by securing the dominant narrative: the Holocaust as a singular, German responsibility that defines modern identity. Nolte and the conservatives “lost,” their reputations damaged and their relativizing arguments relegated to the margins. The victory wasn’t just intellectual—it shaped Germany’s cultural and political landscape for decades, ensuring that Nolte’s 1986 provocation, rather than normalizing the past, reinforced its inescapable weight.

Posted in Germany | Comments Off on The “German Historians’ Dispute” (German: Historikerstreit)

Stalking the Billion-Footed Beast: A Literary Manifesto for the New Social Novel

Posted on March 21, 2025 by Luke Ford

Grok says:

Tom Wolfe’s essay “Stalking the Billion-Footed Beast: A Literary Manifesto for the New Social Novel,” published in Harper’s Magazine in November 1989, is a passionate and provocative call to arms for American writers to reclaim the realistic novel as a vital literary form capable of capturing the sprawling, chaotic vitality of contemporary urban life, particularly in New York City. Drawing from his own experiences as a journalist and novelist, Wolfe critiques the literary trends of the mid-20th century, advocates for a return to detailed realism grounded in reporting, and positions his novel The Bonfire of the Vanities as an exemplar of this approach. Below is an analysis of the essay’s key themes, arguments, structure, and significance.
Key Themes
The Decline of the Realistic Novel
Wolfe begins by lamenting the retreat of American fiction from the “big, rich slices of contemporary life” after World War II. He traces how, in the 1960s, young writers abandoned realism for experimental forms like Absurdist, Magical Realist, and Neo-Fabulist novels, influenced by European intellectual trends proclaiming the “death of the novel.” He attributes this shift to a growing disdain among the intelligentsia for realism’s accessibility to the “mob” (middle class) and its focus on the gritty details of everyday life. Wolfe argues that this turn inward—toward literary games and abstraction—left the vast, dynamic material of American society unclaimed by fiction.

The Power of Realism and Reporting
Central to Wolfe’s manifesto is his belief that realism, bolstered by journalistic reporting, remains the most potent tool for capturing the interplay between individuals and society. He invokes historical giants like Balzac, Zola, Dickens, and Sinclair Lewis, who used meticulous observation to depict their cities and eras. Wolfe asserts that realism’s ability to “absorb” readers—pulling them into characters’ minds and settings—is akin to electricity in engineering: a transformative innovation, not a mere device. He contrasts this with the anesthetized, minimalist fiction of the 1970s, urging writers to wrestle with the “rude beast” of material rather than retreat from it.

The Modern Metropolis as Literary Terrain
Wolfe frames New York City as the ultimate subject for a new social novel, a “billion-footed beast” teeming with ambition, diversity, and conflict. He highlights the social upheavals of the 1960s and 1980s—racial tensions, the sexual revolution, economic booms, and immigration waves—as ripe for exploration. His own novel, The Bonfire of the Vanities, exemplifies this ambition, weaving together Wall Street tycoons, Bronx prosecutors, and Harlem activists into a single narrative tapestry.

Fiction vs. Nonfiction
Wolfe reflects on his career straddling journalism and fiction, noting that nonfiction had become American literature’s “main event” by the 1970s (as he argued in The New Journalism). However, he sees fiction’s unique advantage in its ability to synthesize disparate societal currents into a cohesive story—something nonfiction, bound by facts, cannot fully achieve. He positions The Bonfire of the Vanities as a response to this challenge, proving that fiction can still outstrip journalism in scope and emotional depth.

Key Arguments
Reporting is Essential for Literary Greatness
Wolfe insists that “documentation”—going out into the world as Zola did—provides the raw material that elevates fiction. He cites examples like Zola’s haunting image of the blind mine horse in Germinal and Lewis’s immersion in Kansas City clergy for Elmer Gantry. His own subway research for The Bonfire of the Vanities underscores this method, revealing details (e.g., the disguised Wall Street broker) that enrich his narrative.

The Imagination Alone is Insufficient
Responding to Philip Roth’s lament that reality outpaces the novelist’s imagination, Wolfe argues that writers must confront, not flee, this reality. He suggests that the absurdity of modern life (e.g., televangelist scandals) demands a realism bold enough to match it, rather than an escape into abstraction.

Society’s Influence on the Individual Remains Paramount
Challenging Lionel Trilling’s view that the disintegration of class renders realism obsolete, Wolfe posits that “status” (a broader term encompassing race, wealth, and culture) still shapes personal dramas. In The Bonfire of the Vanities, characters like Sherman McCoy and Reverend Bacon are defined by their societal positions, echoing Tolstoy’s use of class in Anna Karenina.

American Fiction Must Reclaim Its Vastness
Wolfe calls for a literature “worthy of [America’s] vastness,” criticizing the inward turn of postwar writers. He sees the novel as uniquely suited to capture the “headlong rush” of a nation undergoing rapid change, drawing a parallel to Gogol’s breathless wonder at Russia in Dead Souls.

Structure and Style
The essay unfolds as a narrative journey, blending personal anecdotes, literary history, and polemical critique. Wolfe’s structure mirrors his argument: it moves from observation (his early nonfiction ambitions), to analysis (the decline of realism), to action (his creation of The Bonfire of the Vanities). His signature style—vivid, hyperbolic, and punctuated with exclamatory asides—mirrors the frenetic energy of the metropolis he champions. Phrases like “Hog-stomping Baroque country” and “the billion-footed beast” evoke the wild vitality he seeks to capture.
Wolfe employs historical parallels (Dickens, Zola) and contemporary examples (Bernhard Goetz, Tawana Brawley) to ground his argument in both tradition and immediacy. His self-deprecating humor—admitting to despair over fiction’s freedom—softens the manifesto’s didactic edge, making it as engaging as it is persuasive.
Significance
Published in 1989, shortly after The Bonfire of the Vanities hit bookstores, the essay serves as both a defense of Wolfe’s novel and a broader challenge to the literary establishment. It reflects the cultural moment: a late-1980s America grappling with racial strife, economic disparity, and urban transformation, just as the Wall Street crash and high-profile scandals dominated headlines. Wolfe’s “prophetic” label, which he disavows, underscores how his reporting anticipated real-world events like the Brawley case.
The essay also marks a culmination of Wolfe’s evolution from New Journalist to novelist, asserting that fiction can reclaim the territory journalism had dominated. Its influence persists in debates about the novel’s role in an age of information overload, where reality often seems stranger than fiction.
Conclusion
“Stalking the Billion-Footed Beast” is a bold manifesto that champions the realistic novel as a vital, electrifying form, uniquely equipped to grapple with the complexities of modern American life. Wolfe’s call for writers to emulate Zola’s brigade—armed with notebooks, not just imaginations—resonates as both a critique of his contemporaries and an invitation to future generations. Through his own example, he demonstrates that the “wild ride” of the American century demands a literature as ambitious and unruly as the nation itself.

Key Points of Controversy
Critique of Contemporary Fiction
Wolfe’s scathing assessment of post-1960s American fiction—dismissing Absurdist, Magical Realist, and Neo-Fabulist novels as detached, anemic experiments—angered many writers and critics who championed these forms. He accused a generation of “serious” young writers of abandoning the “rude beast” of real life for literary gamesmanship, a charge that struck some as reductive and dismissive of innovative storytelling. For example, his mockery of John Hawkes’s declaration that plot, character, setting, and theme were “enemies of the novel” painted experimental writers as pretentious navel-gazers, ignoring their efforts to redefine narrative in a fragmented postmodern world.
Response: Novelists like John Barth and Ronald Sukenick, whom Wolfe implicitly targeted, might have seen this as an attack on their intellectual rigor. Critics argued that Wolfe overstated realism’s superiority, neglecting how abstraction could capture psychological or existential truths inaccessible to surface-level reporting.

Self-Promotion and The Bonfire of the Vanities
The essay’s timing—published two years after The Bonfire of the Vanities hit bookstores—led some to view it as a self-serving justification for Wolfe’s own work. By positioning his novel as the fulfillment of his manifesto, Wolfe invited accusations of arrogance and opportunism. Critics grumbled that he was less interested in reviving realism than in burnishing his own reputation, especially since the novel had already faced mixed reviews: lauded for its satire but criticized for caricature, particularly of Black characters like Reverend Bacon.
Response: Detractors, including some reviewers cited in the essay itself, initially called Reverend Bacon a “grotesque caricature” of Black activists. After the Tawana Brawley case elevated Al Sharpton’s profile in 1988, others flipped the critique, accusing Wolfe of lacking imagination by mirroring reality too closely. This oscillation fueled perceptions that the essay was a defensive maneuver rather than a sincere literary call.

Racial Representation and Stereotyping
The essay’s references to The Bonfire of the Vanities—particularly its depiction of racial dynamics in New York—reignited controversy over Wolfe’s portrayal of nonwhite characters. His focus on Harlem activists, the Bronx, and the “fourth great wave of immigrants” (from Asia, North Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean) raised questions about whether his realism exoticized or stereotyped marginalized groups. Critics argued that Wolfe, a white journalist in a white suit, was ill-equipped to authentically represent the “Third World down there,” as his fictional mayor puts it.
Response: Black writers and intellectuals, while not directly quoted in the controversy, likely echoed sentiments from reviews of the novel. For instance, some saw Reverend Bacon as a thinly veiled jab at figures like Jesse Jackson or Sharpton, reducing complex activism to manipulative flamboyance. Wolfe’s claim that his reporting made such portrayals “obvious” only deepened the rift, suggesting a lack of self-awareness about his outsider perspective.

Elitism and Dismissal of the Intelligentsia
Wolfe’s disdain for the “native intelligentsia” and their European-inspired disdain for realism provoked accusations of anti-intellectualism. He mocked the postwar push for a French-style literary aristocracy, implying that it produced esoteric fiction irrelevant to the American experience. This stance alienated academics and literary theorists who valued the sophistication of writers like Borges, Kafka, and García Márquez over what they saw as Wolfe’s populist pandering.
Response: Critics like Lionel Trilling (whom Wolfe engages posthumously) or George Steiner, whose ideas he critiques, might have countered that realism was indeed passé in a fractured, post-industrial society. They could argue that Wolfe’s faith in “status” as a substitute for class ignored deeper structural shifts, making his realism nostalgic rather than forward-looking.

Journalism vs. Fiction Debate
Wolfe’s assertion that nonfiction had outstripped fiction as American literature’s “main event”—and his prediction that journalists might seize the “high ground” of literature—ruffled feathers among novelists who saw this as an encroachment on their domain. His praise for genre writers like John le Carré and Joseph Wambaugh over “literary” figures further blurred lines, suggesting that commercial success trumped artistic merit.
Response: Fiction writers might have bristled at Wolfe’s implication that their craft required journalistic crutches. His own admission of struggling with fiction’s freedom after nonfiction’s structure could be read as a tacit acknowledgment of this tension, yet it didn’t quell the sense that he was elevating his hybrid approach above purer literary pursuits.

Players in the Controversy
Literary Critics and Writers: Figures like Robert Towers (coiner of “Radical Disjunction”) or Frederick Barthelme (a Minimalist) represented the experimental camp Wolfe critiqued. While no direct rebuttals from them are cited, their ilk likely fueled the backlash in academic and literary journals.

Reviewers and Journalists: The essay notes press grumbling about The Bonfire of the Vanities, with some calling Wolfe prophetic and others derivative. Outlets like the New York Post (mentioned for its Sharpton scoop) amplified the racial angle, feeding public debate.

Cultural Commentators: The essay’s overlap with real-world events (e.g., Tawana Brawley, Bernhard Goetz) drew in non-literary voices—activists, politicians, and media personalities—who saw Wolfe’s work as either incisive satire or inflammatory provocation.

Wolfe Himself: As both author and lightning rod, Wolfe’s flamboyant persona (white suits, Southern drawl) and prior New Journalism fame (The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, Radical Chic) made him a polarizing figure, amplifying the essay’s impact.

Cultural Context
The controversy unfolded against a late-1980s backdrop of heightened racial tension, economic disparity, and cultural flux in America. The Wall Street crash of October 1987 (just before The Bonfire of the Vanities’s release) exposed the excesses Wolfe satirized, while cases like Brawley’s in 1987-88 and Goetz’s 1984 subway shooting underscored urban volatility. New York, as Wolfe’s “billion-footed beast,” was a microcosm of these shifts, with its growing nonwhite majority challenging white power structures—a dynamic his novel and essay both reflected and provoked.
Literarily, the 1980s saw a tug-of-war between postmodern experimentation (e.g., Don DeLillo, Thomas Pynchon) and a resurgent realism (e.g., Raymond Carver’s minimalism, which Wolfe critiques). Wolfe’s manifesto landed as a gauntlet, rejecting the former and reimagining the latter, just as debates over canon and representation intensified.
Resolution and Legacy
The controversy never fully resolved but rather dissipated as The Bonfire of the Vanities cemented its cultural footprint (bolstered by a 1990 film adaptation) and Wolfe moved on to new projects. Critics continued to debate his legacy—some hailing him as a visionary, others deriding him as a showman—but the essay undeniably stirred reflection on the novel’s role in a media-saturated age.
Its lasting impact lies in its challenge to writers: embrace the chaos of reality or risk irrelevance. Whether seen as prophetic or opportunistic, “Stalking the Billion-Footed Beast” remains a flashpoint in 20th-century literary discourse, exposing fault lines of race, class, and craft that persist today.

So who won and who lost in this controversy?

Grok says:

Winners
Tom Wolfe
Why He Won: Wolfe emerged as the primary beneficiary of the controversy. The essay solidified his reputation as a provocative, larger-than-life figure willing to challenge literary orthodoxy. While it drew criticism, it also amplified the visibility of The Bonfire of the Vanities, which became a cultural touchstone—reinforced by its 1990 film adaptation (despite the film’s poor reception). His prediction of realism’s resurgence gained traction over time, as later novelists like Jonathan Franzen (The Corrections) and Zadie Smith (NW) embraced detailed social narratives, echoing Wolfe’s call. Moreover, the essay’s alignment with real-world events (e.g., Tawana Brawley, Wall Street’s excesses) lent him a “prophetic” aura he modestly disavowed but undeniably benefited from.

Evidence of Victory: Wolfe’s career flourished post-1989. His next novel, A Man in Full (1998), was a bestseller, and he remained a literary celebrity until his death in 2018. The controversy kept him relevant, proving his knack for stirring the pot paid dividends in influence and sales.

Realism as a Literary Form
Why It Won: Wolfe’s manifesto argued that realism, fueled by reporting, could reclaim American literature’s “high ground.” While not an immediate tidal shift, the 1990s and 2000s saw a gradual return to ambitious social novels tackling urban life, race, and class—think The Wire in TV form or novels like Richard Price’s Lush Life. The essay’s critique of experimental fiction’s detachment resonated as postmodernism waned, giving realism a renewed intellectual footing.

Evidence of Victory: The literary pendulum swung back toward narrative heft. Wolfe’s emphasis on “status” over class influenced how later writers framed societal dynamics, validating his insistence that realism remained electrifyingly relevant.

Journalism’s Literary Credibility
Why It Won: Wolfe’s assertion that nonfiction had outstripped fiction in literary merit (building on his 1973 The New Journalism) gained credence. The controversy highlighted journalism’s storytelling power, with figures like Joan Didion and Hunter S. Thompson already blurring lines between fact and art. Wolfe’s own hybrid success—merging reporting with fiction—bolstered this trend.

Evidence of Victory: Narrative nonfiction (e.g., Michael Lewis’s The Big Short) became a dominant form in the decades that followed, often outselling and outshining “serious” fiction, as Wolfe predicted.

Losers
Experimental Fiction Writers
Why They Lost: Wolfe’s broadside against Absurdist, Magical Realist, and Neo-Fabulist writers—John Barth, Ronald Sukenick, John Hawkes, et al.—cast them as out-of-touch elitists fleeing reality. The controversy amplified this narrative, marginalizing their avant-garde efforts at a time when cultural attention was shifting toward accessible storytelling. While these writers retained academic respect, Wolfe’s polemic painted them as relics of a fading 1960s-70s experiment, diminishing their mainstream clout.

Evidence of Loss: By the 1990s, the cultural spotlight favored realist or genre fiction over radical disjunction. Barth’s Chimera (1972 National Book Award winner) and similar works faded from popular discourse, while Wolfe’s blockbuster realism stole the stage.

The Literary Intelligentsia
Why They Lost: Wolfe’s attack on the “native intelligentsia”—the postwar push for a European-style literary aristocracy—hit a nerve but also exposed its vulnerabilities. His mockery of their disdain for realism and preference for esoteric forms (Kafka, Borges) positioned them as disconnected from America’s “billion-footed beast.” The controversy weakened their gatekeeping authority, as Wolfe’s populist tone resonated with readers over academics.

Evidence of Loss: The essay’s influence helped erode the mystique of highbrow literary theory. By the 2000s, MFA programs increasingly emphasized craft over abstraction, aligning more with Wolfe’s ethos than Trilling’s or Steiner’s.

Critics of Wolfe’s Racial Portrayals
Why They Lost: Those who attacked Wolfe for stereotyping Black characters (e.g., Reverend Bacon) or exploiting racial tensions lost traction as The Bonfire of the Vanities proved prescient. The Tawana Brawley case and Al Sharpton’s rise mirrored Wolfe’s fiction so closely that initial cries of caricature softened into grudging acknowledgment of his insight. Critics couldn’t derail his narrative’s cultural staying power.

Evidence of Loss: The novel’s enduring status as a satire of 1980s New York—warts and all—outweighed accusations of insensitivity. Wolfe’s defenders argued his reporting justified his portrayals, and the controversy didn’t dent his sales or legacy.

Mixed Outcomes
Minimalists (e.g., Raymond Carver, Robert Coover)
Why Mixed: Wolfe singled out Minimalism (“K-Mart Realists”) for its anesthetized, tiny-scale focus, yet this critique didn’t fully discredit the form. Carver’s influence persisted, especially in short fiction, but Wolfe’s push for grander narratives may have nudged novelists away from minimalism’s sparseness.

Outcome: Minimalism held its niche but lost ground to the expansive realism Wolfe championed.

Publishing Industry
Why Mixed: Publishers along “Madison Avenue” (as Wolfe noted) were hungry for big social novels but didn’t see the flood Wolfe anticipated. His essay pressured them to seek such works, yet the market remained split between literary fiction and genre hits.

Outcome: Wolfe’s vision partly materialized, but commercial trends favored mass-market authors over his ideal of Zola-esque brigades.

Who Ultimately “Won”?
Tom Wolfe stands as the clearest winner. The controversy burnished his brand, validated his method, and kept The Bonfire of the Vanities in the zeitgeist. His argument—that realism, rooted in reporting, could wrestle the “rude beast” of American life—gained traction over decades, influencing a new generation of writers. His losses (e.g., alienating experimentalists) were minor compared to his gains in cultural capital.
Experimental fiction and its defenders lost the most ground. Wolfe’s polemic hastened their decline in popular relevance, framing them as a detour from literature’s true path. While they retained academic footholds, the broader literary narrative tilted toward Wolfe’s vision.
The broader literary culture emerged in a draw: enriched by the debate but still fractured. Wolfe didn’t spark the battalion of Zolas he envisioned, yet his essay ensured realism’s voice remained loud, proving that controversy itself could be a win for literature’s vitality.
In the end, Wolfe’s triumph was less about crushing opponents and more about seizing the spotlight—proof that, as he might say, the beast was his to stalk.

I want to stalk the billion-footed beast in Los Angeles Orthodox Judaism, just like Tom Wolfe recommended. Any tips?

Grok says:

Tom Wolfe’s “Stalking the Billion-Footed Beast” urges writers to dive into the raw, chaotic vitality of modern urban life with a reporter’s eye, capturing the interplay of society and individual through detailed realism. If you’re inspired to “stalk the billion-footed beast” within the context of Orthodox Judaism in Los Angeles, you’re embarking on a fascinating quest to explore a vibrant, multifaceted community embedded in a sprawling metropolis. Here are some practical tips to channel Wolfe’s approach—venturing into the field, observing keenly, and documenting the rich tapestry of LA’s Orthodox Jewish life.
1. Immerse Yourself in the Terrain
Wolfe emphasized the city as a living character. In LA, Orthodox Judaism thrives in specific enclaves, each with its own pulse:
Pico-Robertson: A hub for Modern Orthodox and Persian Jewish communities, packed with kosher eateries, synagogues like Beth Jacob, and yeshivas. Walk Pico Boulevard to feel the rhythm—families heading to shul, merchants chatting in Farsi or Hebrew.

Beverly-La Brea: Home to a mix of Orthodox Jews, including Haredi and Sephardic families. Visit Fairfax Avenue’s kosher markets and bakeries (e.g., Schwartz Bakery) to see daily life unfold.

North Hollywood/Valley Village: A growing Orthodox pocket with synagogues like Shaarey Zedek and a tight-knit feel. Check out the kosher strip on Burbank Boulevard.

Hancock Park: A historic Orthodox enclave near La Brea, with grand homes and a strong Chabad presence.

Tip: Start early—Orthodox life often revolves around prayer times (Shacharit at dawn, Mincha in the afternoon). Bring a notebook, as Wolfe did, to jot down sights, sounds, and snippets of conversation.
2. Observe the People and Their Status
Wolfe argued that “status” (not just class) shapes personal dramas. In LA’s Orthodox communities, status manifests in religious observance, ethnic identity, and social roles:
Dress as a Signal: Notice the variations—black hats and long coats among Haredi men, kippot srugot (knitted yarmulkes) for Modern Orthodox, or stylish modesty among women. These are markers of identity and affiliation.

Ethnic Diversity: LA’s Orthodox scene includes Ashkenazi, Sephardic (Moroccan, Yemenite), and Persian Jews. Listen for Hebrew, Yiddish, or Ladino at a Shabbat table or community event.

Rabbis and Leaders: Figures like Rabbi Yisroel Ciner (Beth Jacob Irvine) or Chabad rabbis wield influence. Attend a shiur (Torah class) to see how they shape communal life.

Tip: Hang out at a kosher café like Shiloh’s or a market like Glatt Mart. Watch interactions—how a rebbetzin greets a congregant, how a store clerk haggles. These “petits faits vrais” (true little facts), as Wolfe called them, reveal the beast’s heartbeat.
3. Ride the Subway (or Equivalent)
Wolfe rode New York’s subways to uncover raw humanity. LA lacks a comparable system, but you can adapt:
Drive the Streets: Cruise Pico, Fairfax, or Chandler Boulevard in a car—LA’s true transit mode. Observe Orthodox families in minivans, kids with tzitzit spilling out, or a rabbi on a phone call.

Bus Lines: Take the Metro 720 along Wilshire or the 218 through the Valley. You might spot Orthodox Jews heading to work or school, blending into LA’s polyglot flow.

Shabbat Walks: On Friday night or Saturday, walk near synagogues. The absence of cars and the hum of kiddush songs offer a stark contrast to LA’s car-centric chaos.

Tip: Look for Wolfe’s “pathetic disguise” moments—someone hiding their wealth or piety in plain sight, like a businessman in a suit with tzitzit peeking out.
4. Document the Rituals and Rhythms
Wolfe loved the minutiae of everyday life. Orthodox Judaism in LA offers a treasure trove:
Shabbat: Join a public kiddush (post-service meal) if invited—many shuls welcome guests. Note the food (cholent, kugel), the blessings, the chatter about parsha (weekly Torah portion).

Kosher Life: Visit a butcher shop or bakery. How do they source meat? How do Persian Jews adapt recipes? This is Zola-esque “documentation.”

Eruv Checks: LA’s Orthodox neighborhoods have eruvs (ritual boundaries for carrying on Shabbat). Spot the wires or poles—subtle signs of a community within a city.

Tip: Time your visits for festivals—Sukkot sukkahs in backyards, Purim costumes on the streets. These amplify the communal beast Wolfe craved.
5. Engage Without Intruding
Wolfe attended events like Leonard Bernstein’s Black Panther party to gather material. In LA, seek public access points:
Synagogue Events: Many shuls (e.g., Young Israel of Century City) host open lectures or holiday celebrations. Arrive respectfully—men may need a kippah, women modest attire.

Community Centers: The Metivta Center or a Chabad house often host classes blending Orthodoxy with mysticism or psychology—echoes of Wolfe’s social novel scope.

Markets and Festivals: The Fairfax Avenue street fair or a kosher food expo lets you mingle without overstepping.

Tip: Ask questions politely—“What’s the story behind this custom?”—but don’t push. Wolfe’s strength was observation, not confrontation.
6. Capture the Tension with the Metropolis
Wolfe saw the city pressing on the soul. In LA, Orthodox Judaism clashes and coexists with Hollywood glitz, secular liberalism, and immigrant waves:
Racial Dynamics: Note how Orthodox Jews interact with LA’s Latino, Black, and Asian neighbors. Is there insularity or outreach?

Economic Contrast: A kosher restaurant sits near a vegan hipster joint. How do wealth and piety intertwine?

Political Undercurrents: Persian and Orthodox voters lean conservative in blue LA. Peek at a community bulletin board for hints of this divide.

Tip: Look for Wolfe’s “racial Armageddon” moments—tensions over space, noise (a shul vs. neighbors), or identity in a city of reinvention.
7. Reflect and Write
Wolfe wrestled his beast onto the page. After stalking LA’s Orthodox Jewish life:
Synthesize: What’s the “billion-footed” essence here? Is it the cacophony of Hebrew and traffic, the resilience of tradition in a transient town?

Characters: Sketch the people—a yeshiva student, a Persian grandmother, a rabbi juggling faith and LA’s sprawl.

Scene: Set it vividly—Shabbat candles flickering against a smoggy sunset.

Tip: Start with a Wolfe-style opener: “The rebbe, in his black coat, stands on Pico, a Mercedes honking past, and feels the weight of a thousand mitzvot pressing against the city’s glitter.”
Final Thoughts
Stalking the billion-footed beast in LA’s Orthodox Judaism means embracing Wolfe’s ethos: go out, see, listen, and report. You’ll find a microcosm of his “wild, bizarre, unpredictable, Hog-stomping Baroque country”—a community both ancient and modern, insular yet part of LA’s vastness. Whether you’re a writer, observer, or seeker, the beast awaits. Just don’t forget your notebook.

What are the key status markers in West Los Angeles? What are the most common and the most dreaded sources of the deepest humiliation?

Grok says:

Key Status Markers in West Los Angeles
Real Estate Ownership and Location
What It Is: Owning a home in a prestigious ZIP code (e.g., 90210 for Beverly Hills, 90077 for Bel Air) is the ultimate status symbol. Property size, architectural pedigree (e.g., a Richard Neutra design), and proximity to elite enclaves like the Beverly Hills Hotel amplify this marker.

Why It Matters: In a city where sprawl dilutes community cohesion, your address signals wealth and exclusivity. Gated estates or homes with views of the Pacific or Hollywood sign scream arrival.

Example: A Brentwood mansion bought for $20 million-plus trumps a condo in Santa Monica, even if the latter’s pricier per square foot.

Vehicles and Car Culture
What It Is: Driving a luxury or statement car—think Tesla Model S Plaid, Porsche 911 Turbo, or a custom Rolls-Royce—marks status. Bonus points for eco-cred (electric/hybrid) or rarity (vintage Ferrari).

Why It Matters: LA’s car dependency makes your ride a mobile billboard of success. Valet lines at hotspots like Nobu Malibu reveal the pecking order.

Example: A matte-black G-Wagon parked on Rodeo Drive outranks a leased BMW 3 Series.

Social Networks and Celebrity Proximity
What It Is: Being seen with A-listers, tech moguls, or influencers—or having a direct line to them—is a status badge. Membership in exclusive clubs (Soho House, San Vicente Bungalows) or invites to Oscars after-parties count.

Why It Matters: In a town built on “who you know,” proximity to power brokers signals insider status. It’s less about old money than new clout.

Example: Snagging a selfie with Leonardo DiCaprio at a charity gala beats a vague “I met him once” tale.

Appearance and Wellness
What It Is: A sculpted physique, designer athleisure (Lululemon, Alo Yoga), and subtle cosmetic enhancements (Botox, fillers) are must-haves. Regular Pilates at boutique studios or juice cleanses from Erewhon signal dedication.

Why It Matters: LA’s vanity culture ties beauty to discipline and wealth—looking good is a full-time job with a high entry fee.

Example: A $300 haircut at Chris McMillan’s salon trumps a chain salon trim.

Philanthropy and Cultural Cachet
What It Is: Donating big to trendy causes (climate change, homelessness) or sitting on boards like LACMA (LA County Museum of Art) showcases status. Hosting a gala or having your name on a UCLA building helps.

Why It Matters: It’s enlightened self-interest—visibility plus virtue. In West LA, it’s not enough to have money; you must wield it influentially.

Example: A $1 million pledge to a children’s hospital outshines a quiet $10,000 check.

Most Common Sources of Deepest Humiliation
Public Financial Failure
What It Is: Losing a high-profile home to foreclosure, filing for bankruptcy, or being exposed for unpaid debts.

Why It’s Common: West LA’s real estate obsession and leveraged lifestyles mean financial overreach is frequent. The rumor mill (e.g., DeuxMoi posts) amplifies the fall.

Depth of Humiliation: In a status game built on wealth, visible ruin—like a “For Sale” sign after a sheriff’s auction—strips away the facade. Wolfe’s Sherman McCoy, undone by a car accident, parallels this crash from grace.

Social Snubbing or Cancelation
What It Is: Being excluded from elite circles, uninvited to key events, or “canceled” online for a misstep (e.g., a tone-deaf tweet).

Why It’s Common: LA thrives on social capital, and the influencer age makes public shaming a daily risk. One wrong move can tank your RSVP status.

Depth of Humiliation: It’s Wolfe’s “dense magnetic rock” turning hostile—rejection by the in-crowd feels like exile from the city’s core.

Career Stagnation or Flop
What It Is: A film bombing, a startup folding, or years without a “win” in a visible industry (entertainment, tech).

Why It’s Common: West LA is a proving ground for ambition—stagnation is a sin when everyone’s pitching their next big thing.

Depth of Humiliation: In a place where success is loudly celebrated, obscurity or failure (e.g., a producer’s unsold script) is a quiet, gnawing shame.

Most Dreaded Sources of Deepest Humiliation
Exposure as a Fraud or Poseur
What It Is: Being revealed as faking wealth, credentials, or connections—e.g., renting a Bel Air mansion for Instagram clout while broke, or name-dropping nonexistent studio deals.

Why It’s Dreaded: Authenticity, however performative, is currency in West LA. Getting caught as a “wannabe” in a town of gatekeepers is a death knell—think Wolfe’s Wall Street broker in a subway disguise, but unmasked.

Depth of Humiliation: It’s not just loss of status; it’s the annihilation of credibility. The beast’s roar turns into laughter at your expense.

Public Family Scandal
What It Is: A spouse’s affair splashed across TMZ, a child’s arrest in Pacific Palisades, or a messy divorce airing financial laundry.

Why It’s Dreaded: Family is the private anchor to public success. A scandal—especially in tabloid-hungry LA—shatters the curated image of control and perfection.

Depth of Humiliation: It’s personal ruin made communal, echoing Wolfe’s point about society pressing on the soul. The billion-footed beast stomps hardest when it’s your own kin.

Physical or Aesthetic Decline
What It Is: Visible aging, weight gain, or botched plastic surgery that can’t be hidden—say, a facelift gone wrong spotted at Whole Foods on San Vicente.

Why It’s Dreaded: In a youth-and-beauty-obsessed culture, losing your “look” is losing your edge. It’s the ultimate betrayal by the body in a city that worships it.

Depth of Humiliation: Wolfe’s “absorbing” realism would relish this—your external decay becomes a public mirror of inner failure, a fate worse than obscurity.

Synthesis and Wolfean Reflection
West LA’s status markers—property, cars, networks, looks, philanthropy—form a glittering web, much like Wolfe’s Manhattan towers, signaling who’s “where things are happening.” Yet the humiliations, common or dreaded, reveal the beast’s underbelly: a relentless pressure to perform perfection. Financial collapse and social exile are common because they’re built into LA’s high-stakes gamble. Exposure as a fraud or familial disgrace are dreaded because they strike at the existential core—identity itself.
Wolfe would urge you to stalk this beast by riding Sunset Boulevard at dusk, notebook in hand, catching the Botoxed matron in her Bentley or the has-been actor dodging paparazzi. The deepest cuts come not from poverty alone, but from the public unraveling of the dream—West LA’s billion-footed beast feeds on aspiration and devours pretenders.

Posted in Tom Wolfe | Comments Off on Stalking the Billion-Footed Beast: A Literary Manifesto for the New Social Novel

Norman Podhoretz On Race

Posted on March 21, 2025 by Luke Ford

Grok says:

Norman Podhoretz’s essay “My Negro Problem—And Ours,” published in Commentary magazine in February 1963, is a deeply personal and provocative exploration of race relations in mid-20th-century America, filtered through the author’s experiences growing up in a racially mixed neighborhood in Brooklyn during the 1930s and 1940s. The essay combines autobiographical reflection with broader social commentary, revealing Podhoretz’s complex and conflicted feelings about African Americans—feelings of fear, envy, and hatred that persist despite his later intellectual commitment to liberal ideals. Below is an analysis of the essay’s key themes, structure, and arguments.
Key Themes
Personal Experience vs. Abstract Ideology
Podhoretz begins with a stark contrast between the stereotypes he encountered as a child—that Jews were rich and Negroes were persecuted—and the reality of his lived experience, where poor Jews like himself were often victimized by their Black neighbors. This tension between ideology (e.g., his sister’s leftist assertions about racial oppression) and visceral experience shapes the essay’s central conflict. He suggests that his fear and hatred of Black people were not abstract or inherited but rooted in concrete incidents of violence and intimidation, such as being beaten with a bat or robbed by Black peers. This personal lens challenges the prevailing liberal narratives of the time, which often framed racial dynamics solely in terms of white guilt and Black victimhood.

Reciprocity of Hatred and Facelessness
Drawing on James Baldwin’s insight that Black people hate whites because whites refuse to see them as individuals, Podhoretz extends this idea to argue that the “facelessness” operates in both directions. In his childhood, Black kids saw him as a generic white enemy, just as he saw them as a monolithic threat. He also engages with psychological theories of projection, noting that he envied Black boys for their perceived toughness and freedom—qualities he felt lacking in himself—while they might have envied his potential for future social mobility. This mutual projection, he argues, fueled a hatred that transcended rational explanations like historical guilt or economic oppression.

The Limits of Integration
By 1963, as the Civil Rights Movement gained momentum, Podhoretz expresses skepticism about the feasibility and desirability of integration as a solution to America’s racial divide. He observes the reluctance of white liberals—including himself—to fully embrace integration in practice, citing their flight to suburbs or avoidance of Black neighborhoods. He contrasts this with the growing militancy of Black movements like the Black Muslims, who reject integration outright. Podhoretz argues that the pace of progress is too slow to satisfy Black demands for equality “now,” predicting a potential for violence if the impasse persists.

Miscegenation as a Radical Solution
The essay’s most controversial proposition is Podhoretz’s advocacy for “miscegenation”—the blending of races through intermarriage—as the only viable long-term solution to the “Negro problem.” He rejects integration as a mere coexistence of distinct groups, suggesting instead that racial differences must be erased entirely through assimilation. This stance, he admits, is neither immediately practical nor widely accepted, but he frames it as a moral imperative, rooted in his belief that color should not dictate human worth. His personal evolution—from recoiling at the idea of his sister marrying a Black man to hoping he’d bless such a union for his daughter—underscores this shift.

Structure and Style
The essay unfolds in two main parts: a narrative recounting of Podhoretz’s childhood experiences (pp. 93-98) and a reflective analysis of those experiences in the context of broader racial dynamics (pp. 98-101). The first section is episodic, detailing specific “items” or incidents—such as fights over a playground, a beating by Quentin, and a stolen medal—that vividly illustrate the racial hostility of his youth. These anecdotes are raw and unfiltered, emphasizing physicality and emotion over intellectualization.
The second section shifts to a more introspective and argumentative tone, as Podhoretz grapples with his lingering feelings and critiques the liberal orthodoxy of his day. He cites Baldwin extensively, using The Fire Next Time as a touchstone to frame Black despair and white intransigence. His prose is candid, often uncomfortably so, as he admits to envying Black physicality or bristling at “Negro anti-Semitism.” This honesty, paired with a rhetorical escalation toward the miscegenation proposal, makes the essay both a confession and a polemic.
Strengths and Critiques
Strengths: Podhoretz’s willingness to confront his own prejudices head-on lends the essay authenticity and emotional weight. By grounding his argument in personal narrative, he avoids the detached moralizing common in discussions of race at the time. His engagement with Baldwin and psychological theory shows intellectual rigor, while his radical conclusion challenges readers to rethink entrenched positions.

Critiques: The essay’s focus on Podhoretz’s individual experience risks overgeneralization; his Brooklyn neighborhood may not represent the broader American racial landscape. His dismissal of historical factors like slavery as irrelevant to his personal hatred can seem reductive, ignoring how systemic forces shaped the behaviors he describes. Additionally, the miscegenation proposal, while bold, lacks practical grounding and may strike modern readers as naive or insensitive, especially given its implication that Black identity should “disappear.”

Historical Context and Legacy
Written in 1963, amid the Civil Rights Movement’s peak—months before the March on Washington and the Birmingham church bombing—the essay reflects a moment of both hope and disillusionment. Podhoretz, then editor of Commentary, was transitioning from liberalism toward the neoconservatism he’d later embrace, and this piece hints at that shift with its skepticism of progressive ideals. Its unflinching tone and controversial stance sparked debate, cementing its status as a classic, if polarizing, work on race in America.
In sum, “My Negro Problem—And Ours” is a complex meditation on race that resists easy categorization. It’s a product of its time yet timeless in its exploration of how personal encounters shape, and sometimes defy, societal narratives. Podhoretz’s call for honesty about racial feelings remains a provocative challenge, even if his ultimate solution raises as many questions as it answers.

Posted in Race | Comments Off on Norman Podhoretz On Race

Fat Acceptance and Vaccine Rejectionism

Posted on March 21, 2025 by Luke Ford

Rony Guldmann writes:

Sweetgreen CEO Jonathan Nemen sparked a firestorm in October 2021 when he posted on Linkedin that America hadn’t been paying enough attention to obesity’s role in aggravating Covid’s dangers. While endorsing the vaccines, Nemen seemed to downplay their usefulness as public health measures, lamenting that Covid “is here to stay for the foreseeable future” because “no vaccine nor mask will save us.” Foregoing these false hopes, Nemen recommended focusing on the root cause of many Americans’ susceptibility to Covid’s worst outcomes, our unhealthy lifestyles and, specifically, surging rates of obesity, suggesting that, with government health mandates now de rigueur, we might consider taxing “processed food and refined sugar to pay for the impact of the pandemic” and “incentivize health.”

This foray into social commentary drew sharp rebukes from progressives, who condemned Nemen for fat shaming, devaluing the vaccines, and blaming obesity on individual lifestyle choices rather than larger socioeconomic inequalities. Neeman later apologized for his insensitivity on these fronts, while apparently standing by his larger message that obesity is a grave public health threat and the driving force behind many Covid-related hospitalizations and deaths. But this larger message, too, offended some progressives, as it effectively shifted responsibility for Covid’s ongoing ravages from one of the American Right’s putative victim groups — unmasked, MAGA-inclined vaccine rejectionists — to one of the Left’s, fat people laid low by a fatphobic culture. Whatever Nemen’s intent, the refreshing message heard by many right-wing anti-vaxxers was that fat people, not they, were the ones exacerbating a public health crisis. The subtext was that fat people — and especially their enablers in the fat acceptance movement — had yet to be held to account for their unhealthy preferences, even as Covid vaccine refusniks had been dragged through the mud by mainstream media, dismissed as cranks.

Conservatives eagerly seize on fat acceptance as a paradigmatic illustration of everything wrong with the cultural Left and its nihilistic rejection of traditional values, such as discipline, self-control, and deferred gratification. The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh condemns the movement as a “celebration of self-destruction.” His colleague Ben Shapiro contrasts the elites’ censoriousness toward anti-vaxxers with their embrace of fat acceptance, lamenting the hypocrisy of cultural norms that facilitated an endless slew of Covid-era health mandates while making it fatphobic to tell someone they need to lose ten pounds. Conservatives believe fat acceptance gives the lie to the liberal shibboleth that right-wingers are more greatly anti-intellectual or anti-science, as liberals’ sympathy for a movement that denies or downplays the health risks of obesity suggests they’re fully prepared to sacrifice scientific truth to ideological convenience. The Sweetgreen affair could serve as a culture wars flashpoint because it foregrounded this conservative grievance against a perceived double standard that shields the Left from attacks that are routinely meted out to the Right.

The parallels between fat acceptance and vaccine rejectionism are noteworthy. Both insist that established medical authorities have either fabricated or overblown health risks — whether of obesity or remaining unvaccinated — to bring the masses into compliance with the cultural preferences of a dominant group, arguing that the reigning medical consensus on their issue is the ideological instrument of an unjust social hierarchy. For fat acceptance, the bottom of that hierarchy is occupied by fat people victimized by fatphobia dressed up as expertise and benevolence. In this vein, Deborah McPhail and Michael Orsini charge that “obesity” is a “deeply problematic” medical concept that “causes harm to people under the guise of benign objectivity.” For today’s vaccine rejectionists, the marginalized group is right-leaning “ordinary Americans” held in contempt by an expert class of liberal elites convinced of their moral, intellectual, and cultural superiority. Tucker Carlson, for example, has inveighed that the covert purpose of the military’s Covid vaccine mandates was to identify and root out sincere Christians, freethinkers, men with high testosterone, and anyone else not supporting Joe Biden.

Having rejected the medical consensus, both movements must insist that what purports to be the cure — dieting or vaccination — is more dangerous than the alleged disease. Just as some anti-vaxxers insisted that millions were dying, not from Covid but from the vaccines that were said to thwart it, so fat activists attribute the myriad illnesses from which fat people suffer disproportionately to the psychic harms inflicted by the “diet culture” of a fatphobic society, rather than to fatness itself (ignoring that rates of obesity and a host of associated diseases have skyrocketed hand in hand with the introduction of ultraprocessed food across the globe, irrespective of local cultural values). Fat activists and anti-vaxxers alike may have sundry scientific studies at their fingertips to support their renegade opinions, and genuine experts will readily discern why the support is superficial, but untutored laypersons may be ill-equipped to debate the ideologically committed activists. Both movements also have credentialed advocates who lack specialized expertise in the relevant subject but whose MDs or PhDs lend their views a patina of intellectual credibility in the eyes of their followers.

Grok says:

Rony Guldmann’s essay, “Fat Acceptance and Vaccine Rejectionism,” published on Daily Philosophy on March 8, 2025, offers a provocative comparison between two seemingly disparate social phenomena: the fat acceptance movement and vaccine rejectionism. Guldmann, a philosopher and attorney, argues that both movements share underlying cultural and philosophical roots, particularly in their resistance to mainstream scientific and moral consensus. Below, I’ll analyze the essay’s key arguments, structure, strengths, and weaknesses, while keeping the analysis grounded in the text itself.
Summary of the Essay
Guldmann begins by framing fat acceptance and vaccine rejectionism as responses to perceived cultural oppression, where advocates in both camps reject what they see as coercive societal norms imposed by elites—whether medical, scientific, or cultural. He suggests that both movements invert “common sense” by prioritizing individual autonomy and skepticism over collective health imperatives. For fat acceptance, this manifests as a rejection of the stigma around obesity and the moralization of food choices, while for vaccine rejectionism, it appears as distrust of medical authority and pharmaceutical agendas.
The essay draws parallels between the rhetoric and logic of these movements. For instance, Guldmann highlights how fat activists argue that cultural stigma harms health more than obesity itself, akin to how vaccine skeptics claim that vaccine mandates infringe on personal freedom more than unvaccinated status endangers public health. He cites specific examples, like fat activist Virginia Sole-Smith’s “food neutrality” parenting philosophy, which he compares to anti-vax parents’ “vaccine neutrality,” suggesting both reflect a deeper ideological commitment to individual choice over expert-driven norms.
Guldmann also explores why fat acceptance enjoys greater traction among liberal elites compared to vaccine rejectionism, despite their structural similarities. He posits that fat acceptance aligns with progressive narratives of bodily autonomy and anti-stigmatization, while vaccine rejectionism clashes with the same elites’ trust in institutional science. The essay concludes by framing both movements as part of a broader cultural war, where personal identity and moral conviction increasingly trump empirical consensus.
Key Arguments
Shared Resistance to Authority: Guldmann’s central thesis is that both fat acceptance and vaccine rejectionism reject hegemonic authority—medical science in the case of vaccines, and societal norms around body size for fat acceptance. He argues this stems from a shared distrust of “elites” who dictate what constitutes health or morality.

Inversion of Common Sense: Both movements challenge widely accepted truths (e.g., obesity is unhealthy, vaccines are essential) by reframing the debate around personal harm (stigma or coercion) rather than collective well-being. Guldmann sees this as a deliberate philosophical stance, not mere ignorance.

Cultural Reception: Guldmann notes the asymmetry in how these movements are received: fat acceptance is more palatable to liberal circles because it fits within a framework of social justice, whereas vaccine rejectionism is often dismissed as irrational or dangerous, despite similar anti-establishment underpinnings.

Structure and Style
The essay is structured as a comparative analysis, moving fluidly between descriptions of each movement and their philosophical overlap. Guldmann employs a mix of anecdotal evidence (e.g., Sole-Smith’s parenting approach) and broader cultural critique, supported by references to figures like Ben Shapiro to ground his observations in contemporary discourse. His style is dense yet accessible, blending philosophical reflection with social commentary, though it occasionally assumes familiarity with the cultural contexts he critiques.
Strengths
Original Comparison: The juxtaposition of fat acceptance and vaccine rejectionism is novel and thought-provoking. By highlighting their shared anti-authoritarian streak, Guldmann invites readers to reconsider assumptions about these movements’ motivations.

Cultural Insight: The essay effectively captures the zeitgeist of polarized discourse, where personal identity and skepticism of expertise dominate public debates. His point about liberal elites’ selective embrace of fat acceptance over vaccine skepticism rings true in light of current political divides.

Philosophical Depth: Guldmann’s framing of these movements as inversions of “common sense” elevates the discussion beyond surface-level policy debates, rooting it in deeper questions of autonomy, morality, and societal norms.

Weaknesses
Lack of Empirical Support: While Guldmann’s argument is conceptually compelling, it leans heavily on rhetorical parallels rather than data or detailed case studies. For example, he doesn’t substantiate claims about the health impacts of stigma versus obesity with evidence, weakening his critique of fat acceptance’s premises.

Overgeneralization: The essay sometimes paints both movements with broad strokes, risking oversimplification. Not all fat acceptance advocates reject health science outright, nor do all vaccine skeptics base their views on personal autonomy—some cite specific (if dubious) scientific claims.

Unexplored Counterarguments: Guldmann doesn’t fully engage with potential rebuttals. For instance, vaccine mandates are justified by public health outcomes (e.g., herd immunity), a utilitarian argument that differs starkly from the more symbolic fight against fat stigma. This asymmetry deserves more attention.

Critical Reflection
Guldmann’s essay shines as a philosophical provocation but falters as a rigorous analysis. His comparison illuminates an intriguing cultural pattern—distrust of authority as a unifying thread—but the analogy feels strained at times. Vaccine rejectionism has direct, measurable consequences (e.g., outbreaks of preventable diseases), while fat acceptance operates more in the realm of social perception and individual lifestyle. Equating their stakes risks downplaying the former’s urgency.
Moreover, his reliance on elite hypocrisy as an explanatory lens feels reductive. While liberal tolerance for fat acceptance over vaccine skepticism is real, it may reflect practical priorities (public safety versus personal dignity) rather than mere ideological inconsistency. A deeper dive into these nuances could strengthen his case.
Conclusion
“Fat Acceptance and Vaccine Rejectionism” is a bold, intellectually stimulating essay that challenges readers to see unexpected connections in contemporary culture wars. Guldmann succeeds in sparking debate about how we negotiate expertise, autonomy, and collective responsibility. However, its speculative nature and limited engagement with counterpoints leave it more as a conversation starter than a definitive argument. For those willing to suspend their biases—as the Daily Philosophy editor urges—it’s a worthwhile read that rewards critical reflection, even if it doesn’t fully convince.

Posted in Rony Guldmann | Comments Off on Fat Acceptance and Vaccine Rejectionism

I’m Too Angry

Posted on March 21, 2025 by Luke Ford

I tend to be highly impatient. About 90% of the time I lose my temper, it does not serve me. How do I become appropriately patient without using more willpower. I don’t want willpower as the answer because that resource is limited and it declines during the day. I want an internal rearrangement so that I am less at war with reality. How do I embrace and respect reality?

Grok says:

To shift toward greater patience without relying on willpower, you’re looking for a fundamental change in how you relate to reality—less friction, more flow. This is about rewiring your internal stance, not muscling through it. Here’s how you might approach it:
First, reframe impatience as a signal, not a flaw. When you feel that rush of irritation—say, stuck in traffic or waiting on someone slow—it’s your mind screaming, “This shouldn’t be happening!” But it is happening. The tension comes from rejecting what’s real in favor of what you wish was real. Start noticing that gap. You don’t have to fix it yet; just see it. Over time, this awareness alone can loosen the grip of that knee-jerk reaction.
Next, lean into curiosity instead of resistance. When impatience hits, ask yourself: “What’s actually going on here?” Not in a judgy way, but like you’re an observer. Maybe the delay’s exposing a fear of losing control, or a belief that your time’s more valuable than it is. Digging into that doesn’t demand effort—it’s just a pivot in attention. Curiosity pulls you out of the fight with reality and into a kind of neutral gear.
Then, practice micro-acceptances. Not big, dramatic surrenders, but small nods to what’s in front of you. Stuck waiting? “This is where I am right now.” Someone’s late? “They’re moving at their pace, not mine.” It’s not about liking it—it’s about dropping the argument with what’s already true. This builds a habit of aligning with reality, not because it’s noble, but because fighting it is a losing battle that exhausts you.
You can also hijack your physiology to backdoor this shift. Impatience spikes your heart rate, tenses your jaw, heats your chest. When you catch that, slow your breathing—long exhales, not forced inhales. It’s not willpower; it’s a trick to calm the nervous system. Your mind often follows the body’s lead, not the other way around. Less physical agitation, less mental ammo for impatience.
Finally, zoom out. Most of what triggers you is small in the grand scheme—delays, interruptions, people being people. Ask: “Will this matter in a month?” If not, it’s easier to let it slide. Not through grit, but through perspective. Reality doesn’t bend to your timeline, and that’s not a personal attack—it’s just physics.
This isn’t about becoming a saint. It’s about picking a different lens: impatience as a tug-of-war you can step out of, not a beast to wrestle. You stop being at war with reality by seeing it’s not the enemy—it’s just the ground you’re standing on. Try one piece of this, see what sticks. No pressure, no rush.

Posted in Addiction | Comments Off on I’m Too Angry