Click here for PDF version
Review by Rafe Champion

The Culture Cult: Designer Tribalism and Other Essays
by Roger Sandall
Westview, 2001, 214 pp, Paperback $55, ISBN 0 8133 3863 8

Bertrand Russell wrote an essay ÔThe Superior Virtue of the OppressedÕ, published in the collection titled Unpopular Essays. He exposed the silliness of the progressive intellectuals who supposed that all manner of wisdom and virtue could be found among the poor and downtrodden who were generally far away and out of sight. He noted that their illusions were generally destroyed by contact with the various groups and so they had to keep looking further afield, from the local poor, to the rural peasantry of foreign lands, to the noble savages of Africa and elsewhere.

Roger Sandall has brought this message up to date in this collection of essays, which is likely to be unpopular in the circles where it most needs to be read. Sandall is a retired anthropologist and filmmaker who had the remarkable opportunity during the 1960s to spend some time in the outback filming the tribal rituals of Australian Aboriginals. Suddenly the film was literally put into cold storage, not to be seen by human eyes for fear of giving offence to the tender hearted. He also observed at first hand the takeover of academic Anthropology and related social sciences by the new waves of political correctness and relativism.

The main theme of the collection is that all cultures and civilisations need to be judged by much the same set of standards, allowing for a tolerable amount of pluralism. This means that the violent and cruel initiation ceremonies and similar practices of tribal societies around the world need to be viewed with the same jaundiced eye as the sadistic rites of passage in some Western military academies. It means that the revival of the notion of the Ônoble savageÕ, originally popularised by Rousseau (and decisively criticised by Bertrand Russell), gets in the way of useful policymaking on indigenous issues.

The essays are grouped in three parts. Those in the first part, ÔRomantic Primitivism: The Anthropological ConnectionÕ, alert outsiders to some of the foibles of cultural relativists. These are the people who Ian Jarvie described as Ôabsolutists at homeÕ (in condemning the sins and shortcomings of the western world) and relativists abroad (itÕs all relative really, however cruel and irrational). Sandall details his case with a study of communes and critiques of RousseauÕs doctrine of the noble savage and the long tradition of Ôdesigner tribalismÕ, designed to pander to the ignorance and prejudice of urban intellectuals and bohemians.

The essays in Part II show how some selected academics participated in the march of relativism. Sandall has selected Karl Polanyi, Isaiah Berlin and Professor Ivan Sutherland, the ill-fated superior of Karl Popper at Canterbury College in New Zealand. Polanyi emerges as an almost unbelievable figure. Completely devoted to the quest for the communist utopia, he thought he had found an example in the West African slave-owning, large-scale human sacrificing kingdom of Dahomey. Evelyn Waugh would have been hard pressed to invent a character as deluded as this, a case of truth being stranger than fiction.

In the case of Berlin, Sandall argues that his intellectual error was more subtle and possibly more dangerous, namely to promote the basic premise of modern multiculturalism, the idea that all cultures have their own integrity and are valuable in their own right. In the language of Raymond Tallis, in Enemies of Hope: A Critique of Contemporary Pessimism, this amounts to a critique of the Enlightenment and a defence of local culture against universal reason. The really subversive implication of this argument is that the values and practices of different cultures are ÔincommensurableÕ and not amenable to rational critique by any external standard. If this claim against Berlin is true, as suggested by Sandall and Tallis, then he joins Wittgenstein, Feyeraband and Kuhn among the leaders of contemporary irrationalism.

Ivan Sutherland is a very minor figure by comparison and he is included because Roger Sandall himself hails from Christchurch where Sutherland and Popper were colleagues in the philosophy school at Canterbury College from 1937 to 1945. Sutherland was a great supporter of the Maori, and an admirer of their tribal ways, which for Popper represented a typical example of the closed or tribal society. Sutherland created many difficulties for Popper while he wrote The Open Society, for example demanding that Popper should pay for the paper he used to draft the manuscript. In 1945 Sutherland ended his life by his own hand, an embittered and disillusioned man, overshadowed by the brilliance of his junior colleague.

The third part contains a valuable essay on the reasons for the success or failure of cultures. Readers of Hayek will not need to be reminded of the importance of property rights and the function of the extended market order. For example, Sandall notes the ancient Russian tradition that the ruler owns the people, a tradition that has undermined the prospects of economic and social progress in that country for many centuries. The final chapter, ÔCivilisation and its MalcontentsÕ provides illuminating criticisms of T S Eliot, Wittgenstein and Raymond Williams who was a prime mover in left-wing cultural studies. At a time when the free trade movement is in danger of being outflanked by opponents who have so far won the battle for the cultural agenda, critical attention to Williams and others of his ilk, especially locals such as Mackenzie Wark and Dennis Altman, is much needed.

SandallÕs writing is clear and vigorous throughout. He makes many of the same points as Hayek and he is much easier to read. He also points the way to the important and somewhat neglected work of Ernest Gellner. His message is timely and important because it reinforces the passionate complaint of Noel Pearson that the policies supported by the progressive intelligentsia are literally killing his people.

Review by Andrew Norton

The Virtue of Prosperity: Finding Values in an Age of Techno-Affluence
by Dinesh DÕSouza
The Free Press, 2000, 284 pp., $US26, ISBN 0-684-86814-8

Capitalism creates a paradoxÑthe more successfully it solves problems of material want the more controversy it creates. Dinesh DÕSouzaÕs new book, The Virtue of Prosperity, tackles some old capitalist controversies, and begins exploring new issues, including the consequences of mass affluence and selling human genetic engineering.

There are now so many rich Americans that they make up what is sometimes called an ÔoverclassÕ. As of 1998 at least 500,000 American households had a net worth exceeding $5 million. And the American very rich have extraordinary fortunes. According to Forbes magazine there are now 16 Americans with fortunes exceeding $US10 billion, and 269 with assets of at least $US1 billion.

(DÕSouza makes the same irritating person/country comparisons leftists loveÑBill GatesÕs net worth is more than New ZealandÕs GDP, and so on. This is apples and oranges. New ZealandÕs GDP is its annual production, not its net worth. If you added up all New ZealandÕs physical and human assets, the comparison would be more even.)

For societies experiencing mass affluence, and Australia shares AmericaÕs trend but not its scale, wealth is much more visible than in the past. The are many more big spenders to notice, and this is perhaps fuelling perceptions of inequality.

DÕSouza is confident that inequality will not lead to serious class conflict in the US. He points out, correctly, that while most people in the US are not rich relative to the countryÕs wealthiest citizens, they are rich compared to other countries and Americans in the past. He shows that some inequalities have narrowed considerably, such as life expectancy.

He believes that it is important that the poor get richer as well as the rich, and that the rich not be seen to be getting rich at the poorÕs expense. He concedes that this has not always occurred, but says it is generally happening in the American economy today.

Another reason that inequality is not a threat is that people see wealth as being linked at least partly to merit. DÕSouza struggles, however, with the absurd dot.com fortunes being made as his book was being written. He calls this chapter the ÔLottery of SuccessÕ, and eventually settles on the idea of Ôentrepreneurial IQÕ to help restore some talent to what looks like luck. And as we have seen since the book was published, what good luck gave bad luck can take away.

Surprisingly, DÕSouza doesnÕt mention a good little book on attitudes to inequality his employer, the American Enterprise Institute, published a few years ago. It shows the US population to be remarkably uninterested in the issue. Perhaps this is for the reasons listed above, perhaps it is good sense about what really matters in life; perhaps it is American optimism that makes people think they can join the ranks of the wealthy. Whatever the cause or combination of causes, DÕSouzaÕs own optimism is almost certainly justified. (Another survey I have seen found that the only group in American society whose well-being was significantly reduced by inequality was rich leftists.)

Mass affluence doesnÕt just create potential problems for societies as a whole, but for the wealthy themselves. What happens when millions of people can afford lives of leisure for themselves and their children? On DÕSouzaÕs evidence, nothing. The megarich work very long hours. Their offspring are much the same. In the April 2001 issue of The Atlantic Monthly, David Brooks, one of the best American social observers writing today, paints a remarkable picture of the young adults at AmericaÕs elite universities as hard working, responsible and mature.

While DÕSouza is broadly confident that mass affluence is a good thing, he is much less happy about genetic engineering of humans. He criticises what he calls Ôtechno-NietzscheanismÕ, the belief that our values derive from the arbitrary force of our willsÕ, which will be used to justify remaking the human species.

He believes this is very wrongÑa Ôwicked schemeÕ, ÔdespotismÕ and ÔbondageÕ. He argues that genetic engineering is akin to slavery, seeking to own someone else by controlling their characteristics. He would consider only those genetic modifications that the child him or herself would definitely agree to.

In his discussion of these issues, he extensively quotes the doctor and bioethicist Leon Kass. On this I recommend skipping DÕSouza and reading Kass, a thoughtful and insightful conservative, directly. DÕSouzaÕs arguments donÕt seem to quite workÑa genetically engineered person would be as free as anyone else and it isnÕt clear that the moral leap from sexual to scientific genetic engineering is quite as large as DÕSouza thinks it isÑbut it is sensible to give radical innovations like this careful consideration.

The shallowness of DÕSouzaÕs discussion here, even if his conclusions are nevertheless right, is unfortunately typical of the book. While some intellectuals are interviewed and their books discussed, The Virtue of Prosperity is not an intellectual book. It is more like a long piece of feature journalism, relying heavily on reports of othersÕ views rather than a direct argument from DÕSouza himself. As with feature journalism, both sides get to have their say. The for and against techno-capitalism camps are split into the ÔParty of NahÕ and the ÔParty of YeahÕ, and after hearing from both we get DÕSouzaÕs view.

Personally, I didnÕt like this format. In a book I want depth I canÕt find in the feature pages, but skipping from interview to interview gives everything a superficial feel. DÕSouza setting himself up as an adjudicator doesnÕt work well either, because there is no suspenseÑhow likely is a research scholar at the American Enterprise Institute to come down comprehensively on the side of the ÔParty of NahÕ, even if he does express some reservations about genetically engineering humans?

Admittedly, I am not the intended audience. The book must be partly aimed at the super-rich and computer geeks (one chapter is called ÔGeek ChicÕ), encouraging them to consider the consequences of both their wealth and the technology they are creating. On the evidence of DÕSouzaÕs interviews, they are not always reflective types, so the book may be pitched at the right level. Certainly, heÕs managed to get pre-publication favourable backcover blurbs from the co-founder of Netscape and the CEO of American Express. But in the long history of controversy about capitalism, this book will be just a footnote.

Review by Jennifer Buckingham

Academic Success and Social Power: Examinations and Inequality
by Richard Teese
Melbourne University Press, 2000, 272pp, $32.95 ISBN 0522848966

School choice, an important issue overseas, is rarely discussed in Australia. This is at least partly because middle class parents, who are typically the agitators on educational issues, do have school choice to some extent. A large, publicly subsidised private school system has given choice to some parents, but this is not true school choice.

School choice in the true sense of the term means that parents are free to send their child to any school, whether it is public or private, without penalty. True school choice could be established through a universal funding system, where funding follows the child irrespective of the school chosen.

Currently, school choice comes at a price. For the majority of parents, this means a considerable financial sacrifice. Particularly in the last decade, an increasing number of parents have been making this sacrifice; enrolments in non-government schools have been increasing while enrolments in non-government schools have stagnated. Since the abolition of the New Schools Policy in 1997, which had restricted the establishment of new schools, there has been a substantial growth in the number of low-fee independent private schools in response to this demand.

Public education advocates lament this trend. According to the Australian Education Union among others, private schools create cultural enclaves and should not be publicly funded. They fear that universal school choice would create social segregation. There is little evidence to support this claim. In fact, research findings in other countries indicate the opposite.

Ironically, those people from whom choice is presently withheldÑfamilies without the means to privately subsidise childrenÕs schoolingÑare those who have most to gain from it. The existing system of ÔfreeÕ, taxpayer-funded public schools and partially taxpayer-funded non-government schools creates social segregation rather than alleviating it, entrapping students from poor families in badly performing schools.

In his book, Academic Success and Social Power, Professor Richard Teese demonstrates the impact of this social segregation on academic achievement. Graphs and statistics are produced to show that students in the wealthier Melbourne suburbs consistently outperformed students in the poorer suburbs and regional areas. He also provides evidence that private schoolsÕ results were consistently better than those for public schools.

Few would be surprised by these findings. More surprising is TeeseÕs explanation. The high rates of failure in schools in poor and working class suburbs over the last half-century are blamed on two groups in particular: the Ôsocially advantagedÕ families whose children attended private schools or selective public schools, and the universities, whose curriculum development and examination processes offered these children opportunities for academic distinction. Teese claims that students in private schools, who have the dual advantage of better schools and a home environment more conducive to academic pursuits, harnessed the curriculum to perpetuate their own social position, effectively excluding students who do not have the same advantages.

Embedded in this explanation for enduring class differences in academic achievement is a belief that success is relative. Teese claims that private schools were successful because they were able to use their social power to displace failure onto the public schools. Under this zero-sum condition, in order for one school to succeed another must fail

. . . . a hierarchical curriculum demands a stratified school system, containing fortified sites where the advantages of education and culture can be deposited, pooled and pedagogically multiplied, and exposed to sites where failure will and must accumulate to balance its eradication from the strongholds of selective schooling. (7)

Teese further claims that the universities have favoured these students, tailoring the curriculum according to their abilities and attributes. He laments the university-derived curriculumÕs insensitivity to the Ôpedagogical realitiesÕ of schools, claiming that academics in universities were driven by identifying the best and brightest students, rather than by what might be accessible and useful to a diverse range of students.

Indifferent to the real conditions under which students learnt and the barriers that different groups persistently encountered, the pursuit of excellence would continually diminish science. (104)

Notwithstanding his feelings about the content of the curriculum, Teese seems determined to absolve badly performing schools and teachers, as well as the public school system, from any responsibility in the failure rates he quotes regularly throughout his book. He instead chooses to criticise the apparently successful methods used at private schools, accusing them of reducing the richness of the syllabus to a Ôtechnical bureaucratic processÕ (p. 93) and a Ôfactory model of learningÕ (93), even though it is also acknowledged that Ôscience teachers in private schools were very well trainedÕ (81).

TeeseÕs class prejudice is a double-edged sword. He is contemptuous of the success of private schools, but also seems to regard the inferior performance of public schools as inevitable. He attributes part of the high performance of private school students to the high expectations of their parents and teachers (79), yet seems unwilling to consider that such expectations might be beneficial to less socially advantaged students. Teese paints these students as victims of their circumstances, unable to succeed because, according to his relativist view of success, failure is their lot.

Owing to a combination of poverty, low expectations, family dysfunction, inferior schools and other factors, children from families in poorer areas tend to have lower school performance, on average, than those children from wealthier homes. It is na•ve to expect that this gap will ever close completely. However, it is far worse to assume that poor students cannot do as well as their wealthier counterparts. And it does not mean that the gap cannot be narrowed.

In the small section of his book devoted to policy recommendations, the question of school choice is dismissed.

It is not the efforts of individuals acting on their own merits that govern results, but the extent to which students are sheltered from real competition by collective resources or exposed to destruction through lack of support. (224)

Giving disadvantaged students the means to escape the Ôsites where failure will and must accumulateÕ (7) through school choice makes perfect sense, but Teese would prefer Ôa collective response on behalf of the most disadvantaged groups . . . to match the corporate power exercised by the most socially advantaged families (224).

School choice is probably the most effective and efficient way to free socially disadvantaged students with academic potential to attend schools that might better fulfil their needs. It is time for educationists like Teese to acknowledge that the old paradigm of tax-payer-funded public schools versus user-pays private schools is obsolete and arguably destructive, and to allow parents to choose the school that is best for their child.

There is little reason to doubt the facts presented in this book. To his credit, Professor Teese has accumulated an impressive record of the history of curriculum development in secondary schools. The problems with this book are, firstly, the cumbersome style in which it is written, and secondly, its dubious interpretation of events. Those who have the time and the patience to sort through the flamboyant prose and progressive education rhetoric will find something of interest, but there is little to recommend it otherwise.

previous

Policy is the quarterly review of The Centre for Independent Studies. For more information on subscribing to Policy, click HERE

If you are interested in the Centre's activities and publications, why not subscribe to e-PreCIS, our regular email update on the latest news and events.

(e-PreCIS requires html capable email facilities, such as Microsoft Outlook Express or Netscape Messenger)