Charles Murray looks at greatness scientifically.
[link|http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110004206|I can think of worse ways]
Excerpt:
Mr. Murray's number-crunching apparatus is impressive in its way and makes it possible for him to generate some illuminating graphs and "scatter plots" showing the geographic and historical distribution of humankind's achievements. But it also brings to mind, inevitably, the japing definition of social science as "the elaborate demonstration of the obvious by methods that are obscure." Much as I share Mr. Murray's respect for expert opinion--as well as his eagerness to counter the ignorance-mongering of the academic avant-garde--I doubt that his findings will appear any more objective because he has chosen to count the words of the cognoscenti rather than to read them.
"Human Accomplishment" comes to life, fortunately, when Mr. Murray steps out of his quantitative mode. The book is full of telling observations about the limits of historical knowledge, the quality of everyday life in distant eras, and the differences between artistic and scientific excellence. More provocatively, Mr. Murray tries to explain why so many of his "significant figures" have resided in the West, particularly in the core of Europe from 1400 to 1950.
Wealth matters, as does the critical mass of talent present only in elite cities. But more important, in his estimation, is a range of cultural factors. To do their work at all, artists and scientists require "freedom of action," not so much formal rights as intellectual latitude. To thrive, they need something more: a social milieu where life is thought to have purpose, where personal autonomy is encouraged and where a longing for "the true, the beautiful, and the good" provides a "transcendental" spark. In its dynamic combination of these elements, Mr. Murray contends, the modern West has been uniquely blessed.
"Human Accomplishment" is no triumphal march, however. As Mr. Murray sees it, the West's rate of achievement has been in serious decline over the past century. In the sciences, whose progress is cumulative, we have simply exhausted many of the possibilities for fundamental advancement; the laws of nature can only be discovered once. In the arts, the problem has been . . . artists, who, in the name of a "nihilistic" modernism, no longer aim "to realize the beautiful" and reject the true and the good as "valid criteria for judging their work." Today, Mr. Murray laments, the best we produce is "wonderful entertainments," none of it with "enough substance to satisfy, over time."
There is something to this view of the arts, even if Mr. Murray's indictment is too crude and categorical. But more is at work, I suspect, than a loss of metaphysical certitude. When Mr. Murray invokes the "Aristotelian principle" as the measure of artistic greatness--the notion that the highest human pleasures derive from appreciating complexity and refinement--he stands in the tradition of aristocracy and aristocratic connoisseurship. Modern democracy can accommodate such tastes, but it saves its laurels for creations that are energetic, accessible, even vulgar. Surveying today's pop culture, Mr. Murray recognizes that "The Simpsons is wickedly smart." It's more than that, though--it's art for our age.
I say:
Art for our age! Woo hoo!
As for the decline in the West's achievement, I expect that decline has already begun to reverse itself. We've been a sleeping giant. Don't judge us solely by how we look when we've nodded off. Our slumber made us vulnerable to 9/11. But we've had our wake up call, and our morning coffee.
Those who still cling to nihilistic "modernism" are missing the bus. But that's okay. We'll manage without them.
It would be an interesting exercise to look into the etymology of the word "aristocracy." Aristocracy is to meritocracy as "root causes" is to causal relationships. That is, it pretends to be the same thing, but it isn't.
I'm all for appreciating complexity - so long as it stays in its place. And "refinement" is just a word people use.
