DEFINING THE AGE : DANIEL BELL, HIS TIME AND OURS
Edited by Paul Starr & Julian E. Zelizer
Columbia University Press. 332 pages. £28.
ISBN 978-0-231-20367-8
Daniel Bell was one of the New York Intellectuals, a specific group,
albeit not one with a fixed membership or agenda. It’s possible to
place them in a period, roughly 1935 to around 1985, though again I
wouldn’t want to be dogmatic about the details. The 1940s and 1950s
were the key years in many ways and what might be called their house
magazine, Partisan Review,
was read by anyone of consequence in the intellectual world. There
were other publications –
Dissent, Commentary, Encounter, Politics, to name several – but
I suspect Partisan Review
was the one that largely set the pace. Its anti-communist stance was
of importance in the battle of ideas during the Cold War.
Bell was born in 1919 in the Lower East Side of New York and grew up
in poverty. His father had died when Bell was young, and his mother
worked in the garment industry. They (Bell, his mother and brother)
lived with relatives in cramped conditions. When he was thirteen he
joined the Young People’s Socialist League (YPSL), and in 1935
enrolled at the City College of New York (CCNY). It was open to Jews
who were often barred from other educational establishments. And it
was a hotbed of political radicalism, with different groups
gathering in the dining-room alcoves according to their various
left-wing leanings. Bell was a socialist of the social democrat
persuasion and suspicious of communist intentions. He had been
encouraged to read the anarchist Alexander Berkman’s memoirs which
included an account of the suppression of the Kronstadt sailors’
rising in 1921 when Red Army troops under Trotsky’s command brutally
put down the rebellion. It horrified him.
Moving to Columbia University after graduating from CCNY in 1938
Bell gained an MA, and then decided to go into journalism rather
than any further education.
He edited the socialist magazine
New Leader between 1941
and 1945, and in 1948 became Labour Editor at
Fortune, “the nation’s
leading business magazine”. It was a post he held until 1958. In
1959 he began working on what was to become his first book,
Marxian Socialism in the
United States (1952), an informative history of the numerous
groups claiming to represent socialism and the way in which it would
be established in America. How and why the dream failed to come to
fruition was also dealt with by Bell. Looking at how America was
developing, he said : “ Whatever the character of that new social
structure may be – whether state capitalism, managerial society, or
corporative capitalism – by 1950 American socialism as a political
and social fact had become simply a notation in the archives of
history.”
Bell did take up posts in the educational system, teaching sociology
at Chicago and Columbia universities, and finally moving to Harvard
until his retirement in 1990. He also worked for the Congress for
Cultural Freedom (CCF), an organisation which, it turned out, was
financed by the CIA as part of its anti-communist cultural
programme. The scandal that ensued in intellectual circles when
details of CIA involvement came to light also affected magazines
like Partisan Review and
Encounter, the latter
published in Britain. I think it was in its pages in the late-1950s
that I first came across Bell writing about “The Capitalism of the
Proletariat? : American Trade Unionism Today”. I still have the
magazine. He was criticised and condemned for his links to the CCF,
and for publishing in
Encounter, but it always seemed to me that it printed a lot of
interesting material which was well worth reading. Critics made it
seem as if the entire contents were geared to attacking communism,
or at least persuading us that America was always on the side of the
angels, but that certainly wasn’t ever the case.
The list of Bell’s books is quite extensive, with two or three of
them standing out for the interest they attracted when published and
for the way in which they have retained their value today. Saying
that doesn’t imply a criticism of his other books. But it is a fact
that some of them have material which focused on aspects of the time
when they were written – the student activism of the 1960s, for
example – but which now may only appeal to cultural historians.
However, it needs to be made clear that Bell was primarily an
essayist, and his books are often collections of inter-related
pieces.
In The End of Ideology
(1960) Bell put forward a theory of “political deradicalisation”.
Jan Werner Muller, in an essay, “The End of Ideology, the Long
Nineties, and the History of the Present,” says that “comprehensive
doctrines – ideology in the narrower sense of dogma – appeared to be
depleted, if not in the process of disappearing, at the end of the
twentieth century”. This, in a way, seems to bear out what Bell had
predicted years earlier. And the current situation throughout much
of the Western world would appear to support the idea that very few
people now give allegiance to a particular ideological position. The
reasons are complex and don’t simply come down to the facts that
communism collapsed, and many people in the West are financially
more secure than in the past. Even when that security is at risk
they’re not likely to turn to a party with a specific ideological
programme in the hope of making it safe. And few people believe in
the notion of utopia and the dream of a better and more-balanced
society. I doubt that Edward Bellamy’s
Looking Backwards is
likely to be on anyone’s reading list these days. And it could be
that, contrary to what Marx said, “alienation is a fact of human
existence”, as PauL Starr puts it in his essay, “Daniel Bell’s
Three-Dimensional Puzzle”.
Bell himself wrote: “Alienation is not nihilism but a
positive role, a detachment, which guards one against being
submerged in any cause”.
Bell’s views on contemporary society, and it has to be accepted that
he’s largely looking at the West, can be found in
The Cultural Contradictions
of Capitalism where he expresses doubts about the hedonistic
impulse that has taken over throughout Europe and America. In an
earlier book about Bell and his ideas, Howard Brick’s
Daniel Bell and the Decline
of Intellectual Radicalism (1986), there is a useful summary of
what he thinks has happened: “Bell points to the rupture of
traditional identity of culture and social structure, whereby a
character structure suited to the capitalist norms of productive
activity is built upon a Protestant ethic of work motivations,
frugality, impulse renunciation, and delayed gratification. Now, as
culture in the wake of modernism repudiates impulse renunciation and
seeks ‘immediacy, impact, sensation, simultaneity’ in the boundless
cultivation of the self, capitalism has proved ‘ideologically
impotent’, has lost the ‘transcendent ethic’ that gave it
legitimacy”. And there
is no seemingly viable radical ideology to take its place.
It might be asked what Bell’s own position was in terms of politics
and other matters. He liked to describe himself as “a socialist in
economics, a liberal in politics, and a conservative in culture”.
It’s suggested in the introduction to
Defining the Age that
Bell’s ideal may have been “a modified form of capitalism with a
strong role for government in managing the economy and protecting
workers and consumers”. In an engaging memoir of his father Bell’s
son David says that he was frequently angered by allegations that he
had swung to the right and become a neoconservative: “My father
insisted that he remained a man of the left, a ‘socialist in
economics’, a ‘Menshevik’ “.
I’m conscious of the fact that I’ve raced around
Defining the Age, Bell’s
ideas, and those of the
various contributors to the book. There is much worth reading in its
pages, as for example
Fred Turner’s “The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, Then and
Now”, where he takes a close look at “What Daniel Bell Got Wrong”,
“The Coming of Bohemian Technocracy”, and “A New Kind of Capitalism
and a New Contradiction”. It’s a provocative piece and one wonders
how Bell might have responded to it. Margaret O’Mara’s “Assessing
Daniel Bell in the Age of Big Tech” has useful things to say about
how Silicon Valley doesn’t have all the right answers to his
questions.
|