Christopher Lasch's Critique of Progress (w/ Chris Lehmann)
Added 2022-08-11 17:21:43 +0000 UTCChristopher Lasch, the late historian and social critic, can be difficult to pin down. Despite writing with startling clarity and verve, Lasch frustrates his readers' longing for clean partisan taxonomies and explicit programmatic statements. Taken up in recent years by Steve Bannon and post-liberal populists, he was, in life, a man of the left who never ceased interrogating his own side’s pathologies and historical blindspots — often using Marxism, psychoanalysis, and a rich, idiosyncratic historiography of the American scene to do so. As George Scialabba once put it, “Virtually every political and cultural tendency in recent American history has smarted under Lasch’s criticism." And even his most devoted readers have been left asking — “plaintively or exasperatedly,” writes Scialabba — what exactly does Christopher Lasch want?
For our guest, editor and writer Chris Lehmann, Lasch more than an admired intellectual iconoclast and gadfly; he was a treasured teacher and mentor — who was nonetheless difficult to get to know well. In our conversation, Lehmann finds fault with tendentious readings of Lasch’s work by his most ardent fans and virulent enemies alike. To unearth the powerful critique running through Lasch’s oeuvre, we spend most of this episode discussing his late-career opus The True and Only Heaven. Along the way, Lasch’s insights frustrate and illuminate in equal measure, inspiring new variations on classic KYE themes: the relationship between particularity and solidarity, tradition and hierarchy, egalitarianism and expertise, and religion and political virtue. Come along for the ride!
Further Reading:
Chris Lehmann, "Pilgrim's Progress," BookForum, Summer 2010.
Chris Lehmann, "The Betrayal of Democracy," The Baffler, March, 13, 2017.
George Scialabba, "A Whole World of Heroes: Christopher Lasch on Democracy," Dissent, 1995.
Patrick Deneen, "Christopher Lasch and the Limits of Hope," First Things, Dec 2004.
Matthew Sitman, "Whither the Religious Left?" The New Republic, April 15, 2021.
Eric Miller, Hope in a Scattering Time: A Life of Christopher Lasch, Wm B Eerdmans, 2010.
Lasch, The True and Only Heaven: Progress and Its Critics, Norton, 1991.
Lasch, The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in An Age of Diminishing Expectations, Norton, 1978.
Lasch, The Minimal Self: Psychic Survival in Troubled Times, Norton, 1984.
Comments
This episode made me think about the broad appeal of other anti-modernists, especially Wendell Berry. Then I happened to read George Scialabba's piece in the Baffler about Berry, which name-checks Lasch at the start, making that connection better than I could. Have you guys thought about doing something about Berry and other anti-moderns/agrarians who aren't unambiguously right wing (lefties love Berry, lots of people love Berry), but who are often invoked by the right?
Seth Morgan
2022-08-31 16:00:22 +0000 UTCI enjoyed this episode a lot. I've been interested in Christopher Lasch and Chris Lehmann ideas for some time. I first learned about Chris Lehmann from reading The Baffler. I was introduced to Christopher Lasch's work by watching Dr. Laurie Anderson (KSU Political Science Professor) YouTube videos on Lasch. If you've never checked out her YouTube channel it has a lot of material that those who like KYE might like as well. I really like your guy's work and actually re-subscribed after this episode. The episodes you did on the Bozell's was fascinating. I'd read "The Conscience of a Conservative" and wondered who Bozell was and where those sorts of ideas came from. Thank you. One other thing....RM Brown's podcasts and videos have a less intellectual but still very sharp critique of the right-wing kooks and grifters that are raking in viewers and dollars on YouTube etc. He covers a lot of right-wing propaganda and grifting in a humorous way which helps make what is sometimes otherwise a terrifying message something to ponder without having to undergo the trauma of actually listening to hours of mis and disinformation.
Jack Crossen
2022-08-24 20:50:10 +0000 UTCIs there any particular reason why, when you have a guest on the podcast, you simply ask them to talk a bit about a certain thing rather than asking them a direct question about that thing? I’m wondering if this is a methodological choice, perhaps specific to journalism? Or is it a podcasting technique? This isn’t all the time of course, just something I noticed. I guess I just find it interesting because I’ve always been trained to ask direct questions (as an aspiring historian 🙂) in the frame of “how important was x?”, “what caused y?”, “If z what does that affect other things?”, “Which of a or b was most important to c?” and so on. This is a fantastic podcast, it’s certainly been very useful to me. I’m British so sometimes some of the references can be lost on me, but I really appreciate that you take your subject seriously and are not afraid to pitch yourself at a high level. Yet you still make it fun, which is crucial, it would be too much to listen about all these awful people without your humour. I wonder if you’d consider making a little help sheet of all the different sorts of conservatives, can be difficult to keep track of which people are deserving of their enemy status for what reasons!
Daniel Pickton-Allen
2022-08-24 06:37:49 +0000 UTCI wasn’t thinking about it in terms of politics. I suppose I should have, considering the context. I was thinking about human reason more along the lines of the human mind’s ability to understand the structure of nature well enough to successfully land an object on a foreign world and get it to send back data; the ability to compose symphonies and unlock the secrets of DNA.
erik w bjorke
2022-08-23 00:42:55 +0000 UTCKinda funny, when I heard Sam say that, I kinda cheered, because I don't think this is something we explore nearly enough. Human beings aren't rational, or at least they aren't totally rational all the time, and developing theories for the practice of politics based solely on reason as the defining feature of human nature will always be compromised. This is the fundamental flaw at the heart of Marxism: the assumption that people are more rational actors than they actually are, rather than imperfect creatures whose capacities for reason may sometimes be in tension with other forces on their consciousness. Sure, compared to other primates in the animal kingdom? But what help does reason offer if people don't trust or can't access the information they'd need to make the decisions that we on the left here think of as "rational"? That said I think Sam's point here about Freud's view on the aspiration to reason, rather than rationality itself, is spot on. The reason why I kinda dig civic republicanism as a framework for building a durable leftism in American politics is that it emphasizes practice, not theory, and in so doing sets the stage for aspiration to reason rather than the presupposition of it as a condition of governance.
Ryan Erickson
2022-08-22 23:19:59 +0000 UTCWell I vote that they nerd out to their hearts’ content and trust the audience to get up to speed on their own through reading, multiple listenings, etc. Transcripts would help but there are tools out there to DIY it (otter.ai for one).
Mark K
2022-08-22 18:45:29 +0000 UTCmy man Matt bringing it back to Original Sin
ape face
2022-08-20 03:06:12 +0000 UTCGreat episode. Also, one of my favorite 'genres' of a KYE episode: examining the public life of a writer, intellectual, or thinker with the person's inner or personal life in mind (ditto your Didion episode). And Chris was excellent on Lasch. I LOL'd at the Rawls and Updike anecdotes.
Taylor
2022-08-17 02:59:47 +0000 UTCI think this a great way to get into the right’s fascination with depth and the underlying “progress” of contemporary leftism. I’ve seen the depth issue through the Peterson/Jung connection, or more likely, Peterson/Robert Bly connection. The Bannon/Lasch connection is stunningly similar. Will definitely be refreshing my understanding of Lasch.
Dan
2022-08-16 16:37:44 +0000 UTCThanks for the reply.
Garett Smith
2022-08-13 19:50:41 +0000 UTCAnd his views on abortion.
Lee Cokorinos
2022-08-13 19:43:51 +0000 UTCThis is all useful feedback. We'll try to slow it down and define more terms the next go around. Thanks for bearing with us. - Sam
Know Your Enemy
2022-08-13 18:15:34 +0000 UTCI think I probably overstated the case for the sake of good radio; I agree with you in many respects. As for Freud, despite his reputation as a midwife of modernist unsettling, he really thought of himself as a 19th century man of science — and so thought very highly of reason and our capacity for it. What I might should've said on the pod is that Freud thought of reason as a worthy, indeed existentially necessary, aspiration for humankind. And he hoped that his clinical discoveries and interventions would make it *easier* for men and women to use their rational capacities — for their own good and the good of society — instead of being undone by neurosis and the anarchic unconscious. But that isn't possible, for Freud, if we fail to acknowledge the problem and pervasiveness of unreason. The cleanest formulation is Freud's own: psychoanalysis is a rational science of the irrational. (-Sam)
Know Your Enemy
2022-08-13 18:10:11 +0000 UTCVery true we are active listeners!! Thank you for considering my thoughts.
Elaryn New
2022-08-13 17:59:43 +0000 UTCI think he would! (-Sam)
Know Your Enemy
2022-08-13 17:55:59 +0000 UTCThanks (this is Sam), and those are good points. Lasch didn’t write so much about “neoliberalism” as such (actually the word appears in his 60s writing but refers to an entirely different, earlier phenomenon) but his critiques sometimes rhyme with those directed at Reaganite / Thatcherite neoliberalism bc he probably would’ve seen more continuities than some of us between the liberalism of the 50s and 60s and that of the 80s and 90s — an acceleration, perhaps, of tendencies that were already there. If that makes any sense. Thanks for listening and for the comments!
Know Your Enemy
2022-08-13 17:55:12 +0000 UTCThanks, Jack! We obviously enjoy doing them.
Know Your Enemy
2022-08-13 17:51:33 +0000 UTCSeems doubtful you’ll get a dogpile from KYE subscribers! But seriously: we hear you, Claire. This is a really sensible critique. Something to keep in mind in the future. As for Lasch’s less commendable views, we may do another episode on his books on “the family” and right-wing Freudianism in general. So stay tuned! Thanks for listening - Sam
Know Your Enemy
2022-08-13 17:50:54 +0000 UTCJust some food for thought, when you caveat that you don’t agree with all his positions, it might make sense and be academically responsible to briefly explain what these thoughts are. Leaving it to the listener forces them to look it up and potentially be confronted with hateful rhetoric that targets them. It is always easier to get acclimated to those types of things through the host. I get it Im a snowflake feel free to dogpile in the comments. Personally, I just assume the person is probably a bigot and then I listen to the rest of the episode through that lens! It would be easier for me to give the subject of discussion a chance if it was clear that all equities were equally considered by the hosts. *begin the dogpile!*
Elaryn New
2022-08-13 17:46:10 +0000 UTCKYE does all kinds of episodes well, but it's THIS kind of episode that yall do best. always look forward to these literary deep dives and this did not disappoint. good to have you both back!
Jack Wolfe
2022-08-13 15:59:56 +0000 UTCGreat episode. Curious if you’ve read “Pessimism” by Joshua Foa Dienstag. It touches on some of the themes you brought up here.
Keith T.
2022-08-13 11:52:37 +0000 UTCSam great piece in The New York Times! And great episode. I mostly agree about the problem of progress, but it seemed that he was referring to a very specific kind of progress. I also think that he was conflating liberalism (U.S. politics) and neoliberalism in ways that were problematic. But I really like what he said at the end about education and the civic ends that it should be serving. Thanks guys!
History Chick
2022-08-12 22:43:36 +0000 UTCOne of the problems with Lasch is that summing up "what Lasch was all about" is actually really quite difficult. He was about a number of different things, some of which are related and some of which can, if looked at from some angles, even seem contradictory. For all that he championed simple writing and style, his thought is anything but simple.
Adam Koslin
2022-08-12 19:10:46 +0000 UTCVery interesting discussion. Someone it put me in mind of was Alasdair MacIntyre, who is similarly hard to place politically (and for similar reasons, with both authors having once been Marxists. I wonder if MacIntyre would make a good subject for a future podcast.
Joseph Streeter
2022-08-12 19:03:23 +0000 UTCI agree. I enjoyed the episode because of the space opened up between the interlocutors, who obviously enjoyed the conversation, but I would have benefited from a clearer synopsis of Lasch's thought. I found myself pausing the episode about 20 minutes in to search for a short summary of what Lasch was all about.
jml
2022-08-12 18:53:32 +0000 UTCDo yall plan on covering the Southern Agrarians and how they have influenced modern conservatives like Allan C. Carlson?
Rory Bosanko
2022-08-12 04:57:15 +0000 UTCThank you for another great episode! I’ve been wondering recently if/how the Left can articulate a more compelling vision of “limits” and “place” than the Right, so this came at the perfect time. I’m thinking in particular about the baristas here in Louisville, fighting to unionize a coffee shop that has about two dozen locations around town. It’s a fair-trade, eco-friendly, local joint, where the paper cups have quotes from my fellow Kentuckian Wendell Berry (who at least on the center/right is often mentioned alongside Lasch). Unfortunately, this business is doing some serious union-busting and worker intimidation this summer. I know many young centrists and conservatives, especially white Catholics and evangelicals, who might feel sympathy for Central American farmers because they’ve been on mission trips/studied abroad there, might feel an urgency to support conservation projects in our municipal and state parks where they go on their favorite hikes, might buy their produce from local farmers markets. But these impulses rarely push them to a more comprehensive critique of capitalism/neoliberalism. And when they do, it usually looks a lot more like the Benedict Option than the Green New Deal. How do you build a coalition among people with different “particularisms” to support specific union campaigns and maybe solidarity more generally? Is some sort of “civic republicanism” possible today?
Tommy Sullivan
2022-08-12 03:59:56 +0000 UTCugh, the Freud shit. Good ep though.
Evan Nordgren
2022-08-12 02:25:44 +0000 UTCI will agree that human beings think and behave in all sorts of irrational ways, yes. It is not tenable that we are just bat shit irrational. Aristotle’s basic idea that we are rational animals is sound. Domestication of fire and flint knapping are not possible otherwise. This blanket judgment that we are not rational doesn’t make sense. The judgement that we are not rational is not possible without applying reason to the understanding of human nature. The interlocutors must be making these statements with an unspoken understanding that they are to be qualified in some way.
erik w bjorke
2022-08-12 01:43:52 +0000 UTCI've listened to KYE from the beginning, and the ending of this episode on hopes for more humane civic spaces is the first time I've cried while listening. Well done. (That said, I'm gonna pull a Lasch here and equivocate, too - had I not read that Lasch bio, it would've been really difficult to follow the threads about the rivalries with Genovese and Updike.) New Radicalism and Plain Style are hard to find in print but well worth it.
momilli
2022-08-11 22:20:33 +0000 UTCI am a great fan of John Rawls. I was pleased, however, to see his work scrutinized.
Jared Brown
2022-08-11 21:56:47 +0000 UTCI just finished the episode and I really have an issue with these types of KYE eps. They require so much background information and and preexisting knowledge of the subject matter in order to enjoy it. I had never heard of Christopher Lasch before this episode and I had no idea what the hell y'all where talking about for most of the episode. I know this sounds really dumb, but I think that Sam's vocabulary is to complex for me. I don't know any of the concepts that you are talking about and all the terms you throw out as short hand requires preexisting knowledge of those too. This is one of the limits of the medium of podcasting. I'm sure that if we talked face-to-face, you guys could explain what you mean in a way that makes sense for idiots like me. I still love the podcast, but could you guys please try to use simpler language. I know the audience is largely nerds, but this shit was just too much. I hope this has made sense and I only meant it as constructive criticism. Love you guys.
Garett Smith
2022-08-11 20:41:41 +0000 UTCThe return!
Scliff Bartoni
2022-08-11 17:40:07 +0000 UTCYessss
Robin Horne
2022-08-11 17:26:40 +0000 UTC
