What do you think?
Rate this book
Crowd Culture: Examination American Way Of Life
It is truly unfortunate that, until now, the work of Canon Bernard Iddings Bell has been out of print for some time. For Bell’s cultural criticism was an important impetus to the formation of the postwar traditionalist conservative synthesis, drawing the attention of Russell Kirk and others. In Crowd Culture, a remarkably prescient work originally published in 1952 (before the words “dumbing down” had ever been uttered), Bell excoriated the complacent and conformist egalitarian ethos that he believed was undermining American education, religion, and culture. In an age of stultifying homogenization, Bell’s relevance has never seemed greater.
166 pages, Hardcover
First published June 1, 2001
1 person is currently reading
45 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
July 18, 2021
Mr Bell manages to put forward some relevant points, but his entire argument is built on sand, given that he uses the vocabulary of liberalism to criticize it, thereby exposing the major flaws in his arguments. But, good news first:
"The chief threat to America comes from within America. It comes from our prevailing self-admiration, from indisposition to listen to adverse criticism of our way of life, disinclination to see ourselves as we are, an unwillingness to confess our sins...Most Americans regard an insistence on national self-criticism as traitorous or near it." (p. 3)
"We are not a happy people; our alleged gaiety is not spontaneous. Our boredom results not only in a reluctant morality but in shockingly bad manners, which most of us do not even know are bad manners." (p. 4)
"American opinion and action are manageable as truly as in any censor-controlled totalitarian state, perhaps more effectively than in such a state because the reader in this country thinks he is perusing independent journals while, with rare exceptions, he is not. His suspicion of being manipulated is thereby lulled." (p. 13)
"There are, in fact, no neighborhoods, only frequently migrating human units, anarchs, so lonely that they will gladly follow any demagogic quack who pretends to be friendly." (p. 24)
"No such degeneration could happen if were not a restlessly migratory folk. This index reveals a fundamental weakness in our way of life, one which cannot be ignored." (p. 25)
"The first thing that strikes this critical minority, as it looks at the whole cultural picture, is that our is a nation of new-rich people, well washed, all dressed up, rather pathetically unsure just what it is washed and dressed up for; a nation convinced that a multitude of material goods, standardized, furiously and expensively advertised by appeals to greed and vanity, will in themselves make life worth the living. Because we are new-rich, we overvalue possessions. Almost any individual who makes a great deal of money very rapidly supposes that mere possession of wealth is evidence of worth." (p. 26-27)
"No one will deny that sex is important; but it is not so centrally important as most of us seem to suppose." (p. 28)
"...people whose compelling culture has been based on greed for goods, on avidity for sensation, on search for enervating comforts, on conformity to a type set by subhuman urbanization, on a divorcement of the people from the soil, on eager response to the flatteries of propagandists, ever has managed to exist very long." (p. 30)
"He usually has small understanding, nor does he as yet desire much more of it, about what constitutes the good life, the sort of life that gives significance and happiness to man as man, to man as more than the beasts." (p. 99)
"It is because of these lacks that we are incapable of creating and sustaining a consistent foreign policy, that our domestic policy is largely one of competitive greeds, that our culture is frivolous." (p. 115)
These quotes are taking from the 1st and 4th essays in the book - the 1st and 4th lectures that Mr Bell gave to a college audience. They have, by and large, solid ideas. It is in his second and third essays that Mr Bell reveals that he is ill-equipped to take on the problems he presents.
Essay #2 regards schools. Here's what he correctly identifies, quoting a teacher who wrote into him:
"At four o'clock the day is over. But is it? There are still frequent staff conferences to attend for our indoctrination in progressive theory and practice. There is usually an hour or two of paper work, essays to correct, etc. There are 'projects' to set up. We must, moreover, assist in extracurricular student activities: chaperone picnics and dances, coach debating teams and dramatic clubs, that sort of thing. We must do our bit, in short, to amuse the young not only in school but after school too, so that they may be distracted from adolescent fornication, from smoking 'reefers,' from juvenile delinquency in general. Oh yes, we are supposed also to visit the homes of our pupils, to study their social backgrounds, and to act as personal advisers, helping all of them to 'find themselves as beginning adults.' Ours is the life of Reilly. Don't you agree? We labor more and more exhaustingly, and do nothing really well." (p. 60)
and further
"The religion of the public schools is a nontheistic and merely patriotic Secularism." (p. 48)
And why do public school teachers feel this burden? Because of what administrators place on them:
"They desire, in other words, to combine the older functions of the school with the educative functions of the home, the Church, the family doctor, and any number of social agencies. The burden has become too great." (p. 60-61)
In part because of unreasonable parental expectations:
"You are to take charge of these boys and girls and relate the whole child to the whole of life; and don't you try shoving responsibility for them back onto us; and mind you do all this without increasing the school tax rate." (p. 66)
He logically concludes:
"It is not honest, not intelligent, for professional theorists to talk as though this is not the case, thereby leading the general public to suppose that the public schools ought to do, are doing, what in fact they cannot do; encouraging teachers to neglect what they are able to do in order to able about in any number of tasks at which they are necessarily incompetent." (p. 64)
Yet what is Mr Bell's solution? To introduce religion into the public schools. Not "a" religion, mind you, but "religion" in general. These lectures were delivered in 1952, when Americans were still naive enough to think that "religion" would save them, but to point out that schools try to do entirely too much, and then say, let's just introduce some religion into them so that the kids will become better is simply bonkers. The solutions have already started to manifest in the decades since Mr Bell uttered his thoughts: a major rise in homeschooling, the rise of charter schools, the ever-increasing strength of private schools, both religious and secular. The thinking parents long ago figured out that schools are not to be trusted with the whole of their child's education, and that the best educations can either be given to them at home or by some of the best teachers that can be found, and great teachers cost a lot.
In part three he refers to "The Church" in the oddest of ways, in a way I've never ever seen in my lifetime: as a monolith incorporating every denomination under the sun. He makes references to what "the church" does, as if such a body exists except in his own addled mind. Here's an example of this lunacy:
"It is the religion not only of Catholics but also of historic protestants. It is as much the religion of Luther, Wesley, William Temple, Tillich, Niebuhr as it is the religion of Athanasius, Anselm, Teresa, Maritain, Fulton Sheen." (p. 81)
His general criticisms in this lecture fall flat as he attributes faults and shortcomings, while offering solutions and fixes, to an organization that exists only in his mind. There is no "the Church" as he conceives it.
It's a short read, but not worth your time. Turn to Neil Postman, Fr. James Schall, and James Howard Kuntsler for more coherent and honest cultural commentary.
"The chief threat to America comes from within America. It comes from our prevailing self-admiration, from indisposition to listen to adverse criticism of our way of life, disinclination to see ourselves as we are, an unwillingness to confess our sins...Most Americans regard an insistence on national self-criticism as traitorous or near it." (p. 3)
"We are not a happy people; our alleged gaiety is not spontaneous. Our boredom results not only in a reluctant morality but in shockingly bad manners, which most of us do not even know are bad manners." (p. 4)
"American opinion and action are manageable as truly as in any censor-controlled totalitarian state, perhaps more effectively than in such a state because the reader in this country thinks he is perusing independent journals while, with rare exceptions, he is not. His suspicion of being manipulated is thereby lulled." (p. 13)
"There are, in fact, no neighborhoods, only frequently migrating human units, anarchs, so lonely that they will gladly follow any demagogic quack who pretends to be friendly." (p. 24)
"No such degeneration could happen if were not a restlessly migratory folk. This index reveals a fundamental weakness in our way of life, one which cannot be ignored." (p. 25)
"The first thing that strikes this critical minority, as it looks at the whole cultural picture, is that our is a nation of new-rich people, well washed, all dressed up, rather pathetically unsure just what it is washed and dressed up for; a nation convinced that a multitude of material goods, standardized, furiously and expensively advertised by appeals to greed and vanity, will in themselves make life worth the living. Because we are new-rich, we overvalue possessions. Almost any individual who makes a great deal of money very rapidly supposes that mere possession of wealth is evidence of worth." (p. 26-27)
"No one will deny that sex is important; but it is not so centrally important as most of us seem to suppose." (p. 28)
"...people whose compelling culture has been based on greed for goods, on avidity for sensation, on search for enervating comforts, on conformity to a type set by subhuman urbanization, on a divorcement of the people from the soil, on eager response to the flatteries of propagandists, ever has managed to exist very long." (p. 30)
"He usually has small understanding, nor does he as yet desire much more of it, about what constitutes the good life, the sort of life that gives significance and happiness to man as man, to man as more than the beasts." (p. 99)
"It is because of these lacks that we are incapable of creating and sustaining a consistent foreign policy, that our domestic policy is largely one of competitive greeds, that our culture is frivolous." (p. 115)
These quotes are taking from the 1st and 4th essays in the book - the 1st and 4th lectures that Mr Bell gave to a college audience. They have, by and large, solid ideas. It is in his second and third essays that Mr Bell reveals that he is ill-equipped to take on the problems he presents.
Essay #2 regards schools. Here's what he correctly identifies, quoting a teacher who wrote into him:
"At four o'clock the day is over. But is it? There are still frequent staff conferences to attend for our indoctrination in progressive theory and practice. There is usually an hour or two of paper work, essays to correct, etc. There are 'projects' to set up. We must, moreover, assist in extracurricular student activities: chaperone picnics and dances, coach debating teams and dramatic clubs, that sort of thing. We must do our bit, in short, to amuse the young not only in school but after school too, so that they may be distracted from adolescent fornication, from smoking 'reefers,' from juvenile delinquency in general. Oh yes, we are supposed also to visit the homes of our pupils, to study their social backgrounds, and to act as personal advisers, helping all of them to 'find themselves as beginning adults.' Ours is the life of Reilly. Don't you agree? We labor more and more exhaustingly, and do nothing really well." (p. 60)
and further
"The religion of the public schools is a nontheistic and merely patriotic Secularism." (p. 48)
And why do public school teachers feel this burden? Because of what administrators place on them:
"They desire, in other words, to combine the older functions of the school with the educative functions of the home, the Church, the family doctor, and any number of social agencies. The burden has become too great." (p. 60-61)
In part because of unreasonable parental expectations:
"You are to take charge of these boys and girls and relate the whole child to the whole of life; and don't you try shoving responsibility for them back onto us; and mind you do all this without increasing the school tax rate." (p. 66)
He logically concludes:
"It is not honest, not intelligent, for professional theorists to talk as though this is not the case, thereby leading the general public to suppose that the public schools ought to do, are doing, what in fact they cannot do; encouraging teachers to neglect what they are able to do in order to able about in any number of tasks at which they are necessarily incompetent." (p. 64)
Yet what is Mr Bell's solution? To introduce religion into the public schools. Not "a" religion, mind you, but "religion" in general. These lectures were delivered in 1952, when Americans were still naive enough to think that "religion" would save them, but to point out that schools try to do entirely too much, and then say, let's just introduce some religion into them so that the kids will become better is simply bonkers. The solutions have already started to manifest in the decades since Mr Bell uttered his thoughts: a major rise in homeschooling, the rise of charter schools, the ever-increasing strength of private schools, both religious and secular. The thinking parents long ago figured out that schools are not to be trusted with the whole of their child's education, and that the best educations can either be given to them at home or by some of the best teachers that can be found, and great teachers cost a lot.
In part three he refers to "The Church" in the oddest of ways, in a way I've never ever seen in my lifetime: as a monolith incorporating every denomination under the sun. He makes references to what "the church" does, as if such a body exists except in his own addled mind. Here's an example of this lunacy:
"It is the religion not only of Catholics but also of historic protestants. It is as much the religion of Luther, Wesley, William Temple, Tillich, Niebuhr as it is the religion of Athanasius, Anselm, Teresa, Maritain, Fulton Sheen." (p. 81)
His general criticisms in this lecture fall flat as he attributes faults and shortcomings, while offering solutions and fixes, to an organization that exists only in his mind. There is no "the Church" as he conceives it.
It's a short read, but not worth your time. Turn to Neil Postman, Fr. James Schall, and James Howard Kuntsler for more coherent and honest cultural commentary.
February 24, 2023
When “Crowd Culture: an Examination of the American Way of Life” was published in 1952 the Greatest Generation was getting married and buying homes. After enduring the Great Depression and winning World War II, young Americans were settling down and enjoying life.
Cicero Bruce, the author of “Crowd Culture” disapproved. He complained about “a pervasive and decadent popular culture.”
Compared with what we have now, the popular culture of the 1950’s was like Ivory Soap: “99 44/100% Pure.”
The lyrics of a popular song said, “Love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage.” Those lyrics capture the ethos of the 1950’s. I dare not quote rap music for fear of bringing a blush to the cheeks of one of the few virgin brides left in the United States.
Bruce complained, “Nor do we have much left of geographical diversities of culture in these United States.” I think the homogenization of the 1950’s was greatly preferable to the cultural, ethnic, and political polarization we have now, when one third of the United States hates the other third, and is hated in return.
The 1950’s was the decade when Americans went back to church. As late as 1963 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said in a sermon to his congregation at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia:
“In this country the roll of church members is longer than ever before. More than one hundred and fifteen million people are at least paper members of some church or synagogue. This represents an increase of 100 per cent since 1929, although the population has increased by only 31 percent.”
But Cicero Bruce was not satisfied. He complained that the Church’s “only moral function is to bless whatever the multitude at the moment regard as the American way of life…
“The world hurtling on toward political, economic, psychic catastrophe, is not going to be saved…
“The Church has too much come to resemble a social club plus a forum for the exchange of human wisdoms.”
I suspect that Bruce is really complaining about the absence of fanaticism in American religion. When I compare the religious atmosphere in the United States during the 1950’s – and now – with what I see in the Taliban, the Islamic State, and Al Qaeda, I think there is much to be said for our way of experiencing and worshiping the Divine.
Bruce complains that American education emphasizes job training rather than the humanities. This complaint only makes sense for someone with a private income. A person can enjoy a happy and contented life without knowing or caring that Plato and Aristotle ever existed. A person whose education is restricted to philosophy, literature, and history has learned nothing of value to employers.
Bruce ignores the fact that a person who enjoys high culture, like I do, can enjoy it for free in public libraries.
Seen from a distance the 1950’s was an idyllic decade, when God was in his heaven, and all was right with the world. Rates of crime and divorce were much lower than they have since been. Illegitimacy was an astonishingly minuscule six percent. Presidents Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump appealed to nostalgic for the 1950’s. When Trump’s supporters responded positively to the slogan, “Make America Great Again,” the “again they were thinking about was the 1950’s.
When I read this book I felt as I would listening to a man of ordinary appearance complaining about the physical flaws of a beautiful woman.
Cicero Bruce, the author of “Crowd Culture” disapproved. He complained about “a pervasive and decadent popular culture.”
Compared with what we have now, the popular culture of the 1950’s was like Ivory Soap: “99 44/100% Pure.”
The lyrics of a popular song said, “Love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage.” Those lyrics capture the ethos of the 1950’s. I dare not quote rap music for fear of bringing a blush to the cheeks of one of the few virgin brides left in the United States.
Bruce complained, “Nor do we have much left of geographical diversities of culture in these United States.” I think the homogenization of the 1950’s was greatly preferable to the cultural, ethnic, and political polarization we have now, when one third of the United States hates the other third, and is hated in return.
The 1950’s was the decade when Americans went back to church. As late as 1963 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said in a sermon to his congregation at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia:
“In this country the roll of church members is longer than ever before. More than one hundred and fifteen million people are at least paper members of some church or synagogue. This represents an increase of 100 per cent since 1929, although the population has increased by only 31 percent.”
But Cicero Bruce was not satisfied. He complained that the Church’s “only moral function is to bless whatever the multitude at the moment regard as the American way of life…
“The world hurtling on toward political, economic, psychic catastrophe, is not going to be saved…
“The Church has too much come to resemble a social club plus a forum for the exchange of human wisdoms.”
I suspect that Bruce is really complaining about the absence of fanaticism in American religion. When I compare the religious atmosphere in the United States during the 1950’s – and now – with what I see in the Taliban, the Islamic State, and Al Qaeda, I think there is much to be said for our way of experiencing and worshiping the Divine.
Bruce complains that American education emphasizes job training rather than the humanities. This complaint only makes sense for someone with a private income. A person can enjoy a happy and contented life without knowing or caring that Plato and Aristotle ever existed. A person whose education is restricted to philosophy, literature, and history has learned nothing of value to employers.
Bruce ignores the fact that a person who enjoys high culture, like I do, can enjoy it for free in public libraries.
Seen from a distance the 1950’s was an idyllic decade, when God was in his heaven, and all was right with the world. Rates of crime and divorce were much lower than they have since been. Illegitimacy was an astonishingly minuscule six percent. Presidents Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump appealed to nostalgic for the 1950’s. When Trump’s supporters responded positively to the slogan, “Make America Great Again,” the “again they were thinking about was the 1950’s.
When I read this book I felt as I would listening to a man of ordinary appearance complaining about the physical flaws of a beautiful woman.
November 6, 2025
Excellent call to action regarding how to change our culture. Wouldn't be a bit surprised to find that Charlie Kirk read this book, as it seems to somewhat follow his game plan for turning things around.
December 24, 2021
A great analysis of the American people post WW2 and still valid.
January 28, 2009
Quite good.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews