Minds Wide Shut: How the New Fundamentalisms Divide Us

by Gary Saul Morson, Morton Schapiro

A timely exploration of intellectual dogmatism in politics, economics, religion, and literature--and what can be done to fight it



Polarization may be pushing democracy to the breaking point. But few have explored the larger, interconnected forces that have set the stage for this crisis: namely, a rise in styles of thought, across a range of fields, that literary scholar Gary Saul Morson and economist Morton Schapiro call "fundamentalist." In Minds Wide Shut, Morson and Schapiro examine how rigid adherence to ideological thinking has altered politics, economics, religion, and literature in ways that are mutually reinforcing and antithetical to the open-mindedness and readiness to compromise that animate democracy. In response, they propose alternatives that would again make serious dialogue possible.

Fundamentalist thinking, Morson and Schapiro argue, is not limited to any one camp. It flourishes across the political spectrum, giving rise to dueling monologues of shouting and abuse between those who are certain that they can't be wrong, that truth and justice are all on their side, and that there is nothing to learn from their opponents, who must be evil or deluded. But things don't have to be this way. Drawing on thinkers and writers from across the humanities and social sciences, Morson and Schapiro show how we might begin to return to meaningful dialogue through case-based reasoning, objective analyses, lessons drawn from literature, and more.

The result is a powerful invitation to leave behind simplification, rigidity, and extremism--and to move toward a future of greater open-mindedness, moderation, and, perhaps, even wisdom.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Sociology, Religion, Education

336 pages, Hardcover

Published March 23, 2021

About the author

Gary Saul Morson is an American literary critic and Slavist. He is particularly known for his scholarly work on the great Russian novelists Leo Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoevsky, and the literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin. He is Lawrence B. Dumas Professor of the Arts and Humanities at Northwestern University.

Reviews

[Drtaxsacto · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the most profound and challenging book I have read in the last few years. The authors, one of whom I met when I was at USC, make the case that we face a new group of fundamentalists in at least four areas - Literature, Religion, Economics and Politics - who are unwilling and unable to engage substantively in those areas with people with whom they disagree. They argue that fundamentalism is "utopian if not apocalyptic. One knows the truth and those who disagree are ignorant, evil or insane. All goodness belongs to one's own camp." At the heart of fundamentalist belief (which is not demarcated by either left or right) is righteous indignation which hates the other side and wants to destroy it.

In each of the areas they present some interesting reflections about the problem in that area. In the end since our system is based on compromise, and the fundamentalists abhor that, we risk losing the essence of our social and political systems.

I am likely to revisit this book to think about the implications of both how they describe what I think is a very real problem and their preliminary suggestions for how to move away from this challenge.

[Edward Sullivan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A timely, necessary, incisive study of the rise of anti-intellectual dogmatism in religion, politics, science, literature, and economics and the peril it poses to the foundations of an open, democratic society upon reason, thoughtfulness, and a willingness to compromise to survive and thrive.

[Paul Sand · Rating 5 out of 5]

Yet another book about thinking poorly, tribalism, demonization, dogmatism, and related maladies. I seem way too fond of them, maybe. This, however, is the only one I've read recently that uses the word "casuistry" casually. But it's the second non-fiction book I read in a row that quotes Adam Smith, specifically noting his disdain for the "man of system". Also seen: the Kant quote about "the crooked timber of humanity" and Isaiah Berlin's observation about foxes vs. hedgehogs. I swear, someone should make up a bingo card for the reader of books like this.

But the authors, Gary Saul Morson and Morton Schapiro, do provide a unique take. Both academics, Morson is a literary critic while Schapiro is an economist (but more recently a president at Williams College and Northwestern University). And they argue for using timeless insights from (mostly Russian) literature to illuminate one's thinking about current controversies. So, as a bonus, the reader gets a mini-tour of classics like Anna Karenina and Uncle Vanya.

Their main target is various forms of "fundamentalism", a term which the authors take care to define with philosophical rigor, not merely using it as an insult. Fundamentalism manifests itself in certainty: adherents admit no self-doubt, and nay-sayers are evil, stupid, or crazy. Another criterion (involving another word I didn't know) is the "perspicuity of truth": you not only can be certain about it, it's easy for anyone to perceive. And criterion three is often the presence of a "foundational text or revelation": the Bible, the Koran, Das Kapital, …

Definition out of the way, authors proceed to describe how fundamentalism crops up, and damages, large areas of controversy: politics (of course), economics, religion, and literature.

One of areas they discuss in the economics area is "market fundamentalism". Which got into an unsafe area for me; maybe they should have provided me a trigger warning! Am I a market fundamentalist? Fortunately, I think I didn't resemble their caricatures. Their prime example of a market fundamentalist is (Nobel prizewinner) Gary Becker, who thought that economics could potentially explicate all human behavior. And also was dead certain that humanity would eventually see the wisdom of a market in human organ transplantation. (Friedman and Hayek escape scrutiny.)

[Mary Sisney · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book by the current President of Northwestern and a literature professor at that school with whom he has written several books shows why “professorial” is used as a synonym for “dull” or “boring,” why fewer students are majoring in humanities and literature, and why we need a diverse (race, gender, religion, class, generation, region) faculty in academic departments (as well as writing books together). I studied literature at Northwestern and USC and taught it at Evanston High School, USC, Tufts, and Cal Poly Pomona. Not one of those academic institutions is historically black, and not one of my literature teachers (except briefly African writer James Ngugi, who caught pneumonia because he was walking around Evanston without an overcoat during winter quarter and had to leave his African Literature course to a white British professor) was black. Yet the only novels that these two fellow baby boomers (the NU President is four years younger than I am; the literature professor is a year older) mentioned that I enjoyed reading as an undergraduate were Dostoevsky’s CRIME AND PUNISHMENT and two of Jane Austen’s novels—PRIDE AND PREJUDICE and EMMA. I didn’t mind George Eliot’s MIDDLEMARCH but preferred her MILL ON THE FLOSS. The literature professor’s specialty is Russian literature, but that doesn’t explain why he doesn’t mention any American texts and mostly focuses on early (before the 20th Century) literature. Worse, the discussion of the literature was even more pedantic and boring than the discussion of religion, politics, and economics. At one point when the writers were discussing argumentation, I thought about how much more interesting the discussion would be if they had used Huck and Jim’s argument about men speaking French. Of course, if the writers mentioned HUCKLEBERRY FINN, they might have to discuss race, and they certainly didn’t want to discuss that topic. In fact, this book, which was written in 2020, the year that we were not only socially distancing because of a pandemic, but also supposedly having a racial awakening, learning about Juneteenth and Tulsa while protesting the killing of unarmed black people, often by police officers, is another distraction, another false narrative about what is dividing us. IT’S RACISM, STUPID ACADEMICS! I was ready to give the book one star and regret donating money to Northwestern because I thought these two men were racist conservatives but later realized that they’re probably moderate (thus, the disdain for extremists on both sides), racism denying Democrats doing what Democrats do, attacking liberals more than they do conservatives. That’s why Trump was barely mentioned, and that’s why they engaged in false equivalencies, saying that the liberals hate Trump, and the conservatives hate the Squad. In 2020 Trump was the too powerful President, pushing hate, trying to kill some people of color with Covid and others with mass murders. The Squad consisted of four (they’ve expanded to at least six, including one man) young women of color who had no power in the House, chaired no committees. They were hated because of their race and to a lesser extent their gender. Like too many whites, especially men, these two academics felt they could speak for all of us. At one point, they claimed that we all could relate to a Biblical passage about “ploughshares,” even though many of us Bible readers are urban. What? This Southern Baptist who attended Sunday School for years and taught many writers (Toni Morrison, for instance) that alluded to the Bible didn’t recognize the passage and certainly can’t relate to ploughshares. I also don’t agree with most of my white male contemporaries’ evaluations of literature. Chekhov is “perhaps the greatest short story writer”? As Trump might say, “wrong.” I can think of a dozen American writers whose stories are better than the one discussed at the end of this book. As for satire, Sterne’s TRISTAM SHANDY is not only a dud compared to HUCKLEBERRY FINN, there are many other more contemporary writers who use satire effectively—John Heller, John Barth, Ishmael Reed, and Sherman Alexie, to name four male American writers. This book reminded me of the brief Netflix series “The Chair.” The old white professors were losing students because they continued to teach the same old books the same old way while the two younger women of color were more dynamic teachers. Good teachers not only expand and update their personal canons, but they also find new ways to talk about old books. If President Schapiro, who teaches economics, wants to collaborate with a literature professor who will help open and expand his mind, he needs to find a preferably younger woman of color and learn about Morrison, Amy Tan, and Louise Erdrich, as well as about how a woman of color reads HOUSE OF MIRTH, DEATH OF A SALESMAN, GREAT GATSBY, and even the older “classics” like MIDDLEMARCH and EMMA. Most important, all academics, writers, thinkers, and teachers need to be willing to discuss the issue that has most divided us since before this country began—race and racism. Of course, the teachers need to be careful because if they talk about race in the wrong state, they may lose their jobs. I’m going to keep saying this until things change: What an absurd world we’re living in right now! These two academics have added to the absurdity with their boring book.

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

Until I hit Chapter 5, I was all set to give this book top marks. Having finished the book, I do not understand why Chapter 5 was included at all. It is a massive digression from the general message being told, 50 or so pages of "akshually, (Jewish and Christian) scripture is good."

On the one hand, I am a firm "non-believer". On the other hand, I would agree that traditional religious texts do have valuable stories to tell us, may well constitute "great literature", and, if Richard Dawkins is to be believed, even contain beautiful poetry.

I feel strongly that I need to re-read Chapter 5, maybe even the entire book. That chapter seems so far off the beaten path of the first four chapters that I have to have missed something obvious and important along the way.

Thankfully, Chapter 6 returns to the original thread established in the first four chapters.

[Karen Shilvock-Cinefro · Rating 4 out of 5]

Addressing the fundamentalist view to refuse to understand those who disagree with them.
Morson and Schapiro reflect on politics, economics, literature, and general academic topics that are dismissed by fundamentalist thinking and cause a chasm of polarization. This fundamentalist is one who has “strict adherence to the basic properties of any subject or discipline, thus losing the power of academic debate.
I found the chapter on literature the most useful for academic purposes, where so many classics are listed and truly deserve exploitation in an academic setting. However, in the case of the new school approach, “STEM fields will strike another blow against studying and teaching the humanities. “

[Bobbie N · Rating 2 out of 5]

A look at how the rigid adherence to ideological thinking on both the "left" and the "right" has altered politics, economics, religion, and literature in ways that threaten democratic societies, which require dialogue, open-mindedness and compromise in order to function and thrive.

I likely would have gotten more out of it if I were more familiar with the classic literature that is quoted and referred to so often in this book.

[Glenn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Religion coined the fundamentalist adjective a hundred years ago. In addition we now have political, economic, and literary fundamentalism. Also we have both positive and negative fundamentalism in all these area; representing absolute certainty on one hand and total skepticism on the other. One way out - great books especially novels of the realism genre. I hope it's not too late.

[Jerrid Kruse · Rating 5 out of 5]

A needed book illustrating how fundamentalism rooted in certainty of one’s own beliefs and ignoring complexity and other perspectives is creating severe problems in society. Both right and left-leaning people are likely to find things they disagree with and agree with - which illustrates this is an us problem not a them problem.

[Jovany Agathe · Rating 5 out of 5]

Minds Wide Shut by Gary Saul Morson and Morton O Schapiro, a sweeping study of the rise of rigid certainty in politics, economics and literature, and the threat it presents to democracy, which requires open-mindedness and compromise.

[Walter Mack · Rating 4 out of 5]

Time To Take Stock

An invigorating read that reacquaints one with the importance of great literature. Wake up Americans - time to understand the frailties of uncompromising fundamentalist thinking and expression.

[Jaryd · Rating 4 out of 5]

A solid book. I found most of the arguments engaging and insightful. I would recommend reading this book if you're interested in the topic.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

Can we make this required reading for being a human?

[Sveta · Rating 3 out of 5]

G.S. Morson is a brilliant and deep thinker, especially when he's writing about Tolstoy, which is why I picked up this text. I've just begun, and I'm bewildered that it's such a disappointment.

The first chapters, ostensibly intended to identify and define fundamentalism, seem more concerned with arguing against Marxism (?) and the authors seem to think they've ably done so NOT by tackling Marx's critique of how capitalist markets work (the strongest aspect of the theory -- which is what they say good faith arguments ought to focus on) but instead by targeting dialectical materialism. First, Marx's critique of capitalism stands up just fine without it, but even if it didn't, the authors seem to think they've kicked out the legs from dialectical materialism by dedicating two paragraphs to pointing out that it's 'odd' because, after all, 'How can materialism be "dialectic," when "dialectic" refers to forms of human argumentation?'. Voila, Marxist theory disproven.

Well... not if you ask Hegel, from whom the Marxist approach to dialectic derives and for whom historical change is dialectical, with the most significant movement being the negation of the negation -- when history swings against its last major swing to restore order, so to speak. Of course, I'm not suggesting that Hegel would have endorsed Marxism, just pointing out that, for him, the dialectic shapes historical movement itself and isn't simply or solely a way of 'arguing.' Alas, Hegel's weighty view of history - and that of Marx - cannot be either so neatly or so swiftly dismissed. This is neither careful nor thoughtful reasoning, and Hegelianism deserves better than the reductive label of 'utopian.' Also, the book's constant presentation of Soviet hardliners as equivalents, representatives, or substitutes for Marxist thought is simply misleading, as is not even bothering to account for why Marxism might have been either important or appealing in the first place to generations of activists and thinkers, from Benjamin to Sartre to Adolph Reed.

Then again, one of the authors honestly admits that there's 'nothing' that can move him to even consider 'an alternative to markets as a way to allocate scarce resources'. One wants to ask, wow, really, *nothing*? Your mind is that wide shut? Even when markets prioritize the wellbeing of capital and its managers over the lives of millions of people (example: pharmaceutical companies fund research into rare diseases in wealthy countries over widespread tropical diseases that kill millions - why? Because those medications make more money. What about market forces that encourage funding wars? Is that a fair way to allocate resources)? But the authors don't bother facing the difficult (and apparently Marxist?) questions that might present a challenge to a centrist status quo. When they remark that the fundamentalist mindset is characterized by 'A special note of disdain for the unenlightened fools who have not yet come around' I really wondered if it was intended to be a veiled self-reference...

But Marxism is as 'fundamentalist' as any theory insofar as it seeks to unify diverse phenomena within a coherent framework and defends its position by means of largely one-sided arguments. That would include everything from Plato's theory of forms to trickle down economics to Leibniz' monads to feminist critiques of evolutionary psychology to Foucault's descriptions of power to Graham Harman's object oriented ontology to... you get the point. At least, it isn't clear to me why Marxism would be more fundamentalist than other philosophical theories.

Maybe the authors mean to imply that only those theories that don't centralise reason are fundamentalist? I don't know what would 'count' in such a case. Is Kantian aesthetic fundamentalist because it posits that aesthetic beauty is purposeless, and is therefore beyond the purview of rational explanation? Is Kierkegaard's leap of faith fundamentalist because it relinquishes reason? Is Tolstoy's fiction fundamentalist in his final years because his version of Christianity, which has become unshakeable, wholly informs his writing?

For instance, the authors argue that Erasmus is, unlike Luther, not fundamentalist because the former is a measured, skeptical humanist while the latter is a fiery and fully committed revolutionary. Okay, agreed. But they fail to consider that, sometimes, we need those who are willing to risk everything for the sake of nailing theses to doors. A consideration of virtue ethics would've served well, here.

Still, the examinations of fanaticism and radical relativism are insightful and benefit from regular references to literary texts - one of Morson's many many virtues is his reliance on literature as a source of knowledge. As a guide to ethical thought, he's one of the indispensable critics.