What do you think?
Rate this book
Opening of the American Mind
In recent years there has been a spate of right-wing books attacking the contemporary university and blaming educators for a pernicious decline in American culture. MacArthur Award-winning historian Levine takes back the debate with this forceful, utterly readable book about universities and history. An eloquent defense of the opening up of the American university and American society, this book will be an essential companion for anyone who cares about higher education and contemporary culture.
212 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1996
4 people are currently reading
95 people want to read
About the author
Lawrence W. Levine
21 books18 followersLawrence William Levine was a celebrated American historian. He was born in Manhattan and died in Berkeley, California.
A model of the engaged scholar throughout his life, Levine lived both his scholarship and his politics. From the very outset, he immersed himself in the political life of Berkeley – in, for example, a sleep-in in the rotunda of the state capitol in Sacramento to press for fair housing legislation, and the sit-ins in Berkeley organized by CORE to force stores to hire black people.
He participated in the march from Selma to Montgomery, expressing his solidarity with the civil rights movement. During the Free Speech upheaval at Berkeley, he came to the defense of students protesting a ban on political activity on campus in support of the civil rights movement.
He received numerous awards and accolades over the course of his career, most of which was spent in the History Department at the University of California, Berkeley.
Among the honors bestowed upon him were a MacArthur Prize Fellowship in 1983, election to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1985, election as President of the Organization of American Historians in 1992, recognition as a Guggenheim Fellow in 1994, the 2005 Distinguished Scholar Award from the American Historical Association, and the posthumous designation of the Lawrence W. Levine Award, which is given annually by the OAH to the author of the best book in American cultural history.
His books include:
• Defender of the Faith: William Jennings Bryan, the Last Decade, 1915-1925. Oxford University Press, 1965.
• Black Culture and Black Consciousness. Oxford University Press, 1978.
• Highbrow/Lowbrow. Harvard University Press, 1990.
• The Unpredictable Past. Oxford University Press, 1993.
• The Opening of the American Mind. Beacon Press, 1997.
• [with Cornelia R. Levine] The people and the President: America's Conversation with FDR. Beacon Press, 2002.
A model of the engaged scholar throughout his life, Levine lived both his scholarship and his politics. From the very outset, he immersed himself in the political life of Berkeley – in, for example, a sleep-in in the rotunda of the state capitol in Sacramento to press for fair housing legislation, and the sit-ins in Berkeley organized by CORE to force stores to hire black people.
He participated in the march from Selma to Montgomery, expressing his solidarity with the civil rights movement. During the Free Speech upheaval at Berkeley, he came to the defense of students protesting a ban on political activity on campus in support of the civil rights movement.
He received numerous awards and accolades over the course of his career, most of which was spent in the History Department at the University of California, Berkeley.
Among the honors bestowed upon him were a MacArthur Prize Fellowship in 1983, election to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1985, election as President of the Organization of American Historians in 1992, recognition as a Guggenheim Fellow in 1994, the 2005 Distinguished Scholar Award from the American Historical Association, and the posthumous designation of the Lawrence W. Levine Award, which is given annually by the OAH to the author of the best book in American cultural history.
His books include:
• Defender of the Faith: William Jennings Bryan, the Last Decade, 1915-1925. Oxford University Press, 1965.
• Black Culture and Black Consciousness. Oxford University Press, 1978.
• Highbrow/Lowbrow. Harvard University Press, 1990.
• The Unpredictable Past. Oxford University Press, 1993.
• The Opening of the American Mind. Beacon Press, 1997.
• [with Cornelia R. Levine] The people and the President: America's Conversation with FDR. Beacon Press, 2002.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
October 11, 2013
I actually liked this book more than I thought although I am left with many questions. It was written in the mid '90s in response to the spate of books attacking developments in the university world, Allan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind foremost among these and the obvious inspiration of the title. Truth is, this is a far more readable argument than Bloom's.
Levine contends that in fact the "canon" of subjects and texts taught in the university has continued to change throughout the history of universities. At one time, the esteemed texts of English literature, philosophy, and history were in fact eschewed for Greek and Latin literature. The inauguration of "Western Civ" courses only occurred after World War 1.
Furthermore, he argues that the rise of gender, cultural, social and ethnic studies, including the impact of these studies on his own field of history is not a move to cultural relativism or political correctness. Rather, these recognize both the intellectually biased accounts of the past that marginalize many Americans who are not political leaders, or male, or white. We cannot understand the truth of our nation's history and cultural makeup without listening to the full spectrum of those who contribute to "this American life." So as the makeup of our country continues to change, so must the curriculum and intellectual life of the university, as it always has.
By and large, Levine's argument has prevailed in the years since he wrote. And there is much to commend this--a fixed canon that does not take into consideration the contribution of women, the various ethnic communities, the labor movement and more to our national identity does not serve many of those who bear the title "citizen"--it merely expects them to assimilate to some "golden ideal", when in fact, every new element to our society has changed who we are.
There are questions Levine leaves me with:
1. How does this translate into the curriculum of undergraduate education? Ever since before I was a student GEC's were a buffet of possible course selections with little coherence except that they represented different areas of a "general education". As important as these studies are, the reality is that students will sample only a small and fragmented portion of this. If anything, with pressures to control costs and graduate students in four years and increasing specialization of undergraduate education, there is in fact less time for such studies.
2. The years since Levine wrote have resulted in an increasing polarization and Balkanization of American culture around cultural as well as political identities. Circling the wagons around a fixed canon is an inadequate defense against the increasing number of those outside the wagons. But how do we achieve a new form of e pluribus unum that recognizes both our cultural diversity and some common identity and consensus as Americans? Can we maintain an identity as a democratic republic when incommensurable worldviews clash? And what is the role of universities in helping forge that cultural consensus?
3. Beyond a passing observation that, in fact, the advocates of multiculturalism have often been politically inept rather than politically correct, Levine fails to address the hyper-specialization and in-group jargon of these new areas of study that make them incomprehensible to all but the few engaged in those studies. Levine, who sadly is no longer with us, seems to be a notable exception who translates well his own studies of African American cultural history and its contribution to America's cultural heritage. He fails to address how academics can turn from simply talking to each other to making their work accessible to a wider public in an engaging rather than belligerent manner.
These seem important questions in the ongoing formation of "the American mind" and the role of universities in that formation.
Levine contends that in fact the "canon" of subjects and texts taught in the university has continued to change throughout the history of universities. At one time, the esteemed texts of English literature, philosophy, and history were in fact eschewed for Greek and Latin literature. The inauguration of "Western Civ" courses only occurred after World War 1.
Furthermore, he argues that the rise of gender, cultural, social and ethnic studies, including the impact of these studies on his own field of history is not a move to cultural relativism or political correctness. Rather, these recognize both the intellectually biased accounts of the past that marginalize many Americans who are not political leaders, or male, or white. We cannot understand the truth of our nation's history and cultural makeup without listening to the full spectrum of those who contribute to "this American life." So as the makeup of our country continues to change, so must the curriculum and intellectual life of the university, as it always has.
By and large, Levine's argument has prevailed in the years since he wrote. And there is much to commend this--a fixed canon that does not take into consideration the contribution of women, the various ethnic communities, the labor movement and more to our national identity does not serve many of those who bear the title "citizen"--it merely expects them to assimilate to some "golden ideal", when in fact, every new element to our society has changed who we are.
There are questions Levine leaves me with:
1. How does this translate into the curriculum of undergraduate education? Ever since before I was a student GEC's were a buffet of possible course selections with little coherence except that they represented different areas of a "general education". As important as these studies are, the reality is that students will sample only a small and fragmented portion of this. If anything, with pressures to control costs and graduate students in four years and increasing specialization of undergraduate education, there is in fact less time for such studies.
2. The years since Levine wrote have resulted in an increasing polarization and Balkanization of American culture around cultural as well as political identities. Circling the wagons around a fixed canon is an inadequate defense against the increasing number of those outside the wagons. But how do we achieve a new form of e pluribus unum that recognizes both our cultural diversity and some common identity and consensus as Americans? Can we maintain an identity as a democratic republic when incommensurable worldviews clash? And what is the role of universities in helping forge that cultural consensus?
3. Beyond a passing observation that, in fact, the advocates of multiculturalism have often been politically inept rather than politically correct, Levine fails to address the hyper-specialization and in-group jargon of these new areas of study that make them incomprehensible to all but the few engaged in those studies. Levine, who sadly is no longer with us, seems to be a notable exception who translates well his own studies of African American cultural history and its contribution to America's cultural heritage. He fails to address how academics can turn from simply talking to each other to making their work accessible to a wider public in an engaging rather than belligerent manner.
These seem important questions in the ongoing formation of "the American mind" and the role of universities in that formation.
February 13, 2014
Lawrence W. Levine's "The Opening of the American Mind" is the inevitable Leftist counterpoint to Allan Bloom's brilliant 1987 criticism of higher education, "The Closing of the American Mind".
While I agree more with what liberal Levine has to say than conservative Bloom, I am somewhat disappointed that the task of the defense of multiculturalism (as opposed to Bloom's defense of the Canon of Great Books which, in his opinion, comprised the greatness and superiority of Western Civilization) was not given to someone with more deftness of rhetoric and sharpness of tongue.
While Bloom made outrageous claims and often said things in his book with which I wholeheartedly disagreed, I could not help but be impressed by the sheer confidence he displayed in his arguments. That, and his rapier wit, made his book as pleasurable to read as it was informative and, at times, infuriating.
Not that Levine doesn't possess the ratiocinative skills equal to the task of taking on Bloom, but he is certainly less fun to read. My main complaint with Levine is his overwhelming number of quotes. Clearly, Levine conducted massive research in preparation for writing this book, but his prose seems more like an encyclopedic repetition of direct statements, from a variety of sources, on the subject of multiculturalism than a clear, concise argument.
Perhaps part of the problem is the book's length: a mere 174 pages of text, compared to Bloom's book, which was 382 pages of mostly Bloom's professorial blathering and very few actual quotes. Levine hardly gives himself enough room on the page to get a word in edge-wise. That said, I found Levine's book to be a useful resource on the continuing, albeit quite silly, debate about the Canon and Multiculturalism.
To those who are unfamiliar with this debate (which is nearly everyone in the world, with the exception of the small pockets of literary geeks like myself), it essentially has to do with the completely arbitrary selection of Great Literary Works in history (called the Canon) written by the best of the best in Western Thought and Letters (Plato, Homer, Shakespeare, Dickens, Poe, etc.), also known as the Dead White Guys.
Multiculturalism, the pro-Canon-ites' arch-nemesis, has attempted to disrupt the natural order of things by pointing out the lack of (or dismissal of) worthy literary contributions made by people of African, Asian, South American, or feminine descent.
The Pro-Canon-ites take umbrage at the very thought that plebeians like Frederick Douglas and Harriet Beecher Stowe come anywhere close to the grandeur of Aeschylus and Charles Dickens, and to have them stand side by side on the metaphorical pantheon of Timeless Literature is simply unthinkable and scandalous.
Multiculturalists, on the other hand, just want a seat at the table, and/or inclusion on some of the finer Ivy League syllabi.
That's the argument, basically. Like I said: silly. Yet the argument has been raging for centuries, according to Levine, who cogently makes the case that there never actually WAS a Canon to begin with, and the Canon---if it DOES exist---is a constantly changing and growing thing. Levine seems to rightly suggest that the recent attacks on liberal education (and especially in regards to multiculturalist infiltration of American colleges) is founded upon a nostalgia for a Golden Era in higher education that never actually existed.
In many ways, Levine is kind of preaching to the choir with me. I'll be honest, though: my heart (as opposed to my mind), in some ways, harbors a defiant love for Bloom's defense of the Dead White Guys, even if they are racist and sexist. Maybe literature shouldn't be considered sacred or profane, but there is (at least for me) a divine spark that is lit inside my soul whenever I read a Shakespeare sonnet or finish a Dickens novel, a spark that simply isn't there when I read Jonathan Franzen or Toni Morrison...
While I agree more with what liberal Levine has to say than conservative Bloom, I am somewhat disappointed that the task of the defense of multiculturalism (as opposed to Bloom's defense of the Canon of Great Books which, in his opinion, comprised the greatness and superiority of Western Civilization) was not given to someone with more deftness of rhetoric and sharpness of tongue.
While Bloom made outrageous claims and often said things in his book with which I wholeheartedly disagreed, I could not help but be impressed by the sheer confidence he displayed in his arguments. That, and his rapier wit, made his book as pleasurable to read as it was informative and, at times, infuriating.
Not that Levine doesn't possess the ratiocinative skills equal to the task of taking on Bloom, but he is certainly less fun to read. My main complaint with Levine is his overwhelming number of quotes. Clearly, Levine conducted massive research in preparation for writing this book, but his prose seems more like an encyclopedic repetition of direct statements, from a variety of sources, on the subject of multiculturalism than a clear, concise argument.
Perhaps part of the problem is the book's length: a mere 174 pages of text, compared to Bloom's book, which was 382 pages of mostly Bloom's professorial blathering and very few actual quotes. Levine hardly gives himself enough room on the page to get a word in edge-wise. That said, I found Levine's book to be a useful resource on the continuing, albeit quite silly, debate about the Canon and Multiculturalism.
To those who are unfamiliar with this debate (which is nearly everyone in the world, with the exception of the small pockets of literary geeks like myself), it essentially has to do with the completely arbitrary selection of Great Literary Works in history (called the Canon) written by the best of the best in Western Thought and Letters (Plato, Homer, Shakespeare, Dickens, Poe, etc.), also known as the Dead White Guys.
Multiculturalism, the pro-Canon-ites' arch-nemesis, has attempted to disrupt the natural order of things by pointing out the lack of (or dismissal of) worthy literary contributions made by people of African, Asian, South American, or feminine descent.
The Pro-Canon-ites take umbrage at the very thought that plebeians like Frederick Douglas and Harriet Beecher Stowe come anywhere close to the grandeur of Aeschylus and Charles Dickens, and to have them stand side by side on the metaphorical pantheon of Timeless Literature is simply unthinkable and scandalous.
Multiculturalists, on the other hand, just want a seat at the table, and/or inclusion on some of the finer Ivy League syllabi.
That's the argument, basically. Like I said: silly. Yet the argument has been raging for centuries, according to Levine, who cogently makes the case that there never actually WAS a Canon to begin with, and the Canon---if it DOES exist---is a constantly changing and growing thing. Levine seems to rightly suggest that the recent attacks on liberal education (and especially in regards to multiculturalist infiltration of American colleges) is founded upon a nostalgia for a Golden Era in higher education that never actually existed.
In many ways, Levine is kind of preaching to the choir with me. I'll be honest, though: my heart (as opposed to my mind), in some ways, harbors a defiant love for Bloom's defense of the Dead White Guys, even if they are racist and sexist. Maybe literature shouldn't be considered sacred or profane, but there is (at least for me) a divine spark that is lit inside my soul whenever I read a Shakespeare sonnet or finish a Dickens novel, a spark that simply isn't there when I read Jonathan Franzen or Toni Morrison...
September 10, 2010
I had forgotten how good this book is in providing an overview of the so-called culture wars in the university. Levine is great in contextualizing the attacks on change and, especially, multiculturalism in education. This is most pertinent to my own situation right now.
August 13, 2016
Far better than the namesake it refutes, and ultimately a better reflection of modern thinking, thankfully. A little lighter on detail than it really should be, but still an important read.
November 17, 2017
Scholar, educator, and writer Lawrence W. Levine provides persuasive evidence that the GOP's sing-song protests against the Political Correctness of America's college campuses are mostly histrionics. While it does exist, Levine shows by weighing the actual evidence that PC modifications to the "traditional" canon of higher education are guided more by honest and inclusive scholarship than by an effort to corrupt all that was holy in some halcyon age now past.
Levine presents numerous well-attested revelations regarding the traditional canon of required reading for a graduate degree. All are fascinating and many surprising. But perhaps the most telling was this. Through most of this nation's history, the entire canon was the Greek and Latin classics in their ancient language forms.
Levine presents numerous well-attested revelations regarding the traditional canon of required reading for a graduate degree. All are fascinating and many surprising. But perhaps the most telling was this. Through most of this nation's history, the entire canon was the Greek and Latin classics in their ancient language forms.
February 24, 2021
I had to read this book for my Liberal Studies 300 course. I enjoyed some of Levine's chapters/points, but it was a little dry for me -- probably because I would much rather be reading romance or something at least slightly sexier than an academic discussion of higher education in the United States.
August 24, 2021
A little out of date but really powerful and useful truths.
January 30, 2015
Revealing
Levine sounds reasoned until the reader asks questions. He notes that at Berkeley the white student population declined from 68% in 1974 to 37% in 1994 while 75% of America was white at that time. Assuming all is equal, which of course it isn’t, one would expect equal representation by demographic percentage. The obvious question is, if America were 75% white in 1994, why would only 37% be admitted to Berkeley? Could whites be disadvantaged, incapable of passing Berkeley’s rigorous standards, or because Berkeley practices racist admission policies? Levine writes this “is more representative of the nation’s population,” but as it fails numerically the reader is left to wonder in what way it is more representative? He adds that Berkeley became the first major university with a majority of minority students, revealing early his emphasis on race, not education, and his philosophy, as expanded on by Arthur M. Schlesinger’s Disuniting Of America.
Levine’s book is a response to Alan Bloom’s critique of modern American university education in The Closing Of The American Mind.” Bloom is at times recklessly and conveniently misrepresented while at others accurate enough to cause wonder at what Levine could possibly disagree with? Levine paints Bloom as anti-multiculturalist. However, as Bloom notes, Herodotus was a multiculturalist too, as all should be, but with a different intent than now practiced in America: to learn what was unknown about the human condition, not to return from his travels to dismantle his homeland by removing Greek (Western) thinking as a “bias” suppressive of others, which is Levine’s position repeated throughout the book, generally between the lines.
Levine characterizes criticism of our university system and its politics as “conservative” because, in Derridian form, he focuses on who said it, not what they say or if it might be true. No debate. Yet Levine swears by open-mindedness – as long as it does not clash with his agenda. Using out-of-context sound bites Levine relishes remarks by his critics as crazy eyed, apocalyptic non-sense, lumping all into the same bucket. Never is there a hearing on recorded events and practice on campus from which these criticisms are sourced. Levine marginalizes opposition by the oft-used method of obfuscation. Issues are just too complicated, vast, impenetrable, given such mixture, morphing attitudes or flux of opinions in the marketplace of ideas to make a conclusion. That “conclusion” is happy news for Levine as it is self-serving, keeping his dogma in power. Practicing a Creationist favorite, Levine puts words in the mouth of his critic’s then tells how wrong they are. “It surely was much simpler when the university community was a homogeneous one,” writes Levine. A statement critics would agree with, but not condone, nor dare make against the muscle of today’s climate of political correctness.
Levine smacks of the anti-West creed throughout, dismissing with a sneer those who could possibly claim Western ideals as “good.” As though only naïve fools would utter such “myth” and “propaganda.” Levine’s book is readable, though not the penetrating and elevating work Bloom offered. Levine does reveal what his side of our politicized universities stand for and against, and in that his text has value as a measure of how bad things are.
Levine sounds reasoned until the reader asks questions. He notes that at Berkeley the white student population declined from 68% in 1974 to 37% in 1994 while 75% of America was white at that time. Assuming all is equal, which of course it isn’t, one would expect equal representation by demographic percentage. The obvious question is, if America were 75% white in 1994, why would only 37% be admitted to Berkeley? Could whites be disadvantaged, incapable of passing Berkeley’s rigorous standards, or because Berkeley practices racist admission policies? Levine writes this “is more representative of the nation’s population,” but as it fails numerically the reader is left to wonder in what way it is more representative? He adds that Berkeley became the first major university with a majority of minority students, revealing early his emphasis on race, not education, and his philosophy, as expanded on by Arthur M. Schlesinger’s Disuniting Of America.
Levine’s book is a response to Alan Bloom’s critique of modern American university education in The Closing Of The American Mind.” Bloom is at times recklessly and conveniently misrepresented while at others accurate enough to cause wonder at what Levine could possibly disagree with? Levine paints Bloom as anti-multiculturalist. However, as Bloom notes, Herodotus was a multiculturalist too, as all should be, but with a different intent than now practiced in America: to learn what was unknown about the human condition, not to return from his travels to dismantle his homeland by removing Greek (Western) thinking as a “bias” suppressive of others, which is Levine’s position repeated throughout the book, generally between the lines.
Levine characterizes criticism of our university system and its politics as “conservative” because, in Derridian form, he focuses on who said it, not what they say or if it might be true. No debate. Yet Levine swears by open-mindedness – as long as it does not clash with his agenda. Using out-of-context sound bites Levine relishes remarks by his critics as crazy eyed, apocalyptic non-sense, lumping all into the same bucket. Never is there a hearing on recorded events and practice on campus from which these criticisms are sourced. Levine marginalizes opposition by the oft-used method of obfuscation. Issues are just too complicated, vast, impenetrable, given such mixture, morphing attitudes or flux of opinions in the marketplace of ideas to make a conclusion. That “conclusion” is happy news for Levine as it is self-serving, keeping his dogma in power. Practicing a Creationist favorite, Levine puts words in the mouth of his critic’s then tells how wrong they are. “It surely was much simpler when the university community was a homogeneous one,” writes Levine. A statement critics would agree with, but not condone, nor dare make against the muscle of today’s climate of political correctness.
Levine smacks of the anti-West creed throughout, dismissing with a sneer those who could possibly claim Western ideals as “good.” As though only naïve fools would utter such “myth” and “propaganda.” Levine’s book is readable, though not the penetrating and elevating work Bloom offered. Levine does reveal what his side of our politicized universities stand for and against, and in that his text has value as a measure of how bad things are.
January 12, 2014
A useful teaching tool and a fine riposte to Bloom's pretentious manifesto, but I wish Levine had acknowledged some of the problems (discussed by left-liberals such as Rorty, Benn Michaels, Wendy Brown, among others) with an over-emphasis on "identity" to the detriment of class (although he does include a few paragraphs toward the end arguing against over-specificity, he doesn't really hammer that point home). At any rate, I plagiarize freely from the intro and conclusion to this work when teaching the US survey to braindead freshmen ("I am not the mouth for these ears").
May 3, 2012
An intense historical account of America's universities to defend a position against the negativity of our current education system (in reference to the closing of the American mind by Allan Bloom). The opening of the american mind is a perspective that describes our past shaping our present and that we must be 'open' to realizing our past to understand our present. (it was written by a historian)
January 11, 2008
interesting counterpart to the better known Closing of the American Mind.
May 9, 2010
Good stuff. Interesting history.
October 2, 2010
Great book for anyone who is considering a career within the university.
April 1, 2011
I wasn't impressed with this book. It does not compare to "Closing."
August 13, 2012
counters the Lynne Cheney view of American history quite nicely.
Read
September 24, 2017US 7.0
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews