Podcasts about new york review

Joining us in this episode is Edward Chancellor, a financial historian, journalist, and investment strategist. He is the author of Devil Take Hindmost: A History of Financial Speculation, and The Price of Time, books that dive into the stock market, economic growth, rising inequality, elevated debt levels, the pensions crisis, and more.  In addition to his larger works, Edward is also a columnist writing for Reuters Breakingviews and a contributor to the Wall Street Journal, MoneyWeek, the New York Review of Books and Financial Times. What has 30 years of experience in the financial sector taught Edward about economic history and investment opportunities? He joins the podcast to explain… In this conversation, we explore:  What led Edward to leave the world of finance to pursue writing.  How to understand investment from a historical perspective.  How finances have changed in the last 60 years. What financialization is, and what it does to society.  To learn more about Edward and his ongoing work, click here now! Episode also available on Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/30PvU9C

In Part 1 of our discussion on Louisa May Alcott's Little Women, we welcome editor Sarah Blackwood to discuss the importance of Alcott's family background; her distinct authorial voice in books, journals, and letters; and how her time as a Civil War nurse led to her emergence into the publishing world. Sarah Blackwood is Professor of English at Pace University, where she teaches courses on nineteenth-century US literature, visual culture, and representations of selfhood. She is the author of The Portrait's Subject: Inventing Inner Life in the Nineteenth-Century United States (2019), as well as the introductions to the Penguin Classics editions of Edith Wharton's The Custom of the Country (1913) and The Age of Innocence (1920). Her criticism has appeared in The New York Review of Books, The New Yorker, The New Republic, and elsewhere. She lives with her family in Brooklyn, New York.To learn more or purchase a copy of the Norton Library edition of Little Women, go to https://wwnorton.com/books/9780393876734.Learn more about the Norton Library series at https://wwnorton.com/norton-library.Have questions or suggestions for the podcast? Email us at nortonlibrary@wwnorton.com or find us on Twitter at @TNL_WWN and Bluesky at @nortonlibrary.bsky.social. 

In which we discuss how fascism has generally played out in Canada and why right wing movements today are different, all while Mack battles sleep live on the pod. --- Support: Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/historiacanadiana); Paypal (https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/historiacanadiana) --- Further Readings Allan, Ted. This Time A Better Earth, Les Presses de l'Université d'Ottawa/University of Ottawa Press, 2015 [1939]. Eco, Umberto. "Ur-Fascism," The New York Review of Books, 1995.

On this episode of 1050 Bascom, we were delighted to talk with Corey Robin, Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center. Prof. Robin is also a frequent contributor to The New Yorker, The New York Review of Books, and other publications. Prof. Robin was on campus in April as part of the University's Phi Beta Kappa Society's Visiting Scholar Program. He presented a talk entitled, “Clarence Thomas's Radical Race Politics and the Future of the Supreme Court.” We asked Prof. Robin about his research into the intellectual life of Clarence Thomas, the longest serving justice on the Supreme Court. It was a fascinating conversation and we learned so much. Listen here.

From 1949 until his death in 1997, Murray Kempton was a distinct presence in New York City journalism. Peddling around town on a three-speed bicycle wearing a three-piece suit, he wrote about everything from politics to jazz to the Mafia. His writing was eloquent, his perspective unique, and his moral judgements driven by a profound sympathy for losers, dissenters and underdogs. His best-known work was written for the New York Post, New York Newsday, and later the New York Review of Books. Kempton could find a good story in a criminal trial or a bureaucratic report, and he peppered his columns with references to history and literature to set stories in context. He enjoyed the respect of people as different as the conservative writer William F. Buckley and members of the Black Panther Party. Going Around: Selected Journalism / Murray Kempton (Seven Stories Press, 2025), edited by Andrew Holter, brings Kempton's work to old admirers and a new generation of readers. The book includes a biographical introduction by Holter and a foreword by Darryl Pinckney. Holter is a writer and historian who has written for the Times Literary Supplement, the Los Angeles Review of Books, and the Brooklyn Rail. He edited Going Around while he was completing his doctorate in history at Northwestern University. His dissertation explores the history of photography and American policing in the middle decades of the 20th century, especially the use of cameras by municipal "Red Squads" to monitor political dissent and social movements. Robert Snyder is Manhattan Borough Historian and professor emeritus of Journalism and American Studies at Rutgers University. He is the author of When the City Stopped: Stories from New York's Essential Workers (Cornell UP, 2025.) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

From 1949 until his death in 1997, Murray Kempton was a distinct presence in New York City journalism. Peddling around town on a three-speed bicycle wearing a three-piece suit, he wrote about everything from politics to jazz to the Mafia. His writing was eloquent, his perspective unique, and his moral judgements driven by a profound sympathy for losers, dissenters and underdogs. His best-known work was written for the New York Post, New York Newsday, and later the New York Review of Books. Kempton could find a good story in a criminal trial or a bureaucratic report, and he peppered his columns with references to history and literature to set stories in context. He enjoyed the respect of people as different as the conservative writer William F. Buckley and members of the Black Panther Party. Going Around: Selected Journalism / Murray Kempton (Seven Stories Press, 2025), edited by Andrew Holter, brings Kempton's work to old admirers and a new generation of readers. The book includes a biographical introduction by Holter and a foreword by Darryl Pinckney. Holter is a writer and historian who has written for the Times Literary Supplement, the Los Angeles Review of Books, and the Brooklyn Rail. He edited Going Around while he was completing his doctorate in history at Northwestern University. His dissertation explores the history of photography and American policing in the middle decades of the 20th century, especially the use of cameras by municipal "Red Squads" to monitor political dissent and social movements. Robert Snyder is Manhattan Borough Historian and professor emeritus of Journalism and American Studies at Rutgers University. He is the author of When the City Stopped: Stories from New York's Essential Workers (Cornell UP, 2025.) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

My Conversation with Waj begins at about 36 mins Stand Up is a daily podcast that I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls I joined Waj for a LIVE talk on his Substack Channel "The Left Hook" Check out his new show on youtube ‘America Unhinged,' with Francesca Fiorentini and Wajahat Ali - Zeteo's new weekly show following Trump's first 100 days in office. Wajahat Ali is a Daily Beast columnist, public speaker, recovering attorney, and tired dad of three cute kids. Get his book Go Back To Where You Came From: And, Other Helpful Recommendations on Becoming American which will be published in January 2022 by Norton. He believes in sharing stories that are by us, for everyone: universal narratives told through a culturally specific lens to entertain, educate and bridge the global divides. Listen to WAj and DAnielle Moodie on Democracy-ish  He frequently appears on television and podcasts for his brilliant, incisive, and witty political commentary. Born in the Bay Area, California to Pakistani immigrant parents, Ali went to school wearing Husky pants and knowing only three words of English. He graduated from UC Berkeley with an English major and became a licensed attorney. He knows what it feels like to be the token minority in the classroom and the darkest person in a boardroom. Like Spiderman, he's often had the power and responsibility of being the cultural ambassador of an entire group of people, those who are often marginalized, silenced, or reduced to stereotypes. His essays, interviews, and reporting have appeared in The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Washington Post, The Guardian, and New York Review of Books. Ali has spoken at many organizations, from Google to Walmart-Jet to Princeton University to the United Nations to the Chandni Indian-Pakistani Restaurant in Newark, California, and his living room in front of his three kids. Join us Monday's and Thursday's at 8EST for our Bi-Weekly Happy Hour Hangout!  Pete on Blue Sky Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube  Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art  Hire DJ Monzyk to build your website or help you with Marketing      

Matt Crawford speaks with Andrew Holter about his book, Going Around: Selected Journalism Murray Kempton. A courtly man of Southern roots, Murray Kempton worked as a labor reporter for the New York Post, won a Pulitzer Prize while at Newsday, and was arrested at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago along the way. He wore three piece suits and polished oxfords and was known for riding his bicycle around New York City while listening to his CD Walkman and smoking a pipe with wild red hair that later turned white. He developed a taste for baroque prose and became, in the words of Robert Silvers, his editor at The New York Review of Books, ''unmatched in his moral insight into the hypocrisies of politics and their consequences for the poor and powerless.'' He went to court proceedings and traffic accidents and funerals and to speeches by people who either were or wanted to be rich and famous. He wrote about everything and anybody—Tonya Harding and Warren Harding, Fidel Castro and Mussolini, Harry Truman and Sal Maglie, St. Francis of Assisi and James Joyce and J. Edgar Hoover. From dispatches from a hardscrabble coal town in Western Maryland, a bus carrying Freedom Riders through Mississippi, an Iowa cornfield with Nikita Krushchev, an encampment of guerrillas in El Salvador, and Moscow at the end of the Soviet Union (these last two assignments filed by a reporter in his 70s), Kempton's concerns and interests were extraordinarily broad. He wrote about subjects from H.L. Mencken to Tupac Shakur; organized labor and McCarthyism; the Civil Rights and Black Power movements; presidential hopefuls and Mafiosi; frauds and failures of all stripes; the “splendors and miseries” of life in New York City.

The Golden Road: How Ancient India Transformed the World is the new book by the celebrated historian William Dalrymple. For listeners of Grand Tamasha, Dalrymple surely needs no introduction. He is the bestselling author of nine books, including The Last Mughal, The Anarchy, and City of Djinns. He is cofounder of the Jaipur Literature Festival and cohost of the wildly popular podcast, “Empire,” with Anita Anand.His new book, The Golden Road, highlights India's often forgotten role as a crucial economic fulcrum, and civilizational engine, at the heart of the ancient and early medieval worlds. It tells the story of the forgotten Indosphere and its multiple legacies.To talk more about his new book, William joins Milan from our studio in Washington, D.C. They discuss the reasons the Indosphere has been obscured from history, the alluring narrative of the Sinocentric “Silk Road,” and Buddhism's extraordinary journey around the world. Plus, the two discuss the deep penetration of the Hindu epics into Asia, India's scientific and mathematical discoveries, and whether an Indian mindset of cultural absorption and synthesis can be recovered.Episode notes:1. Abhrajyoti Chakraborty, “The Golden Road by William Dalrymple review – the rational case for ancient India's ingenuity,” The Guardian, September 15, 2024.2. William Dalrymple, “‘In Britain, we are still astonishingly ignorant': the hidden story of how ancient India shaped the west,” The Guardian, September 1, 2024.3. Willaim Dalrymple, “Vibrant, Cacophonous Buddhism,” New York Review of Books, September 21, 2023.

Waj joins me at 24 mins Stand Up is a daily podcast that I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more Waj Joins me at 28 mins. Check out his new show on youtube ‘America Unhinged,' with Francesca Fiorentini and Wajahat Ali - Zeteo's new weekly show following Trump's first 100 days in office. Wajahat Ali is a Daily Beast columnist, public speaker, recovering attorney, and tired dad of three cute kids. Get his book Go Back To Where You Came From: And, Other Helpful Recommendations on Becoming American which will be published in January 2022 by Norton. He believes in sharing stories that are by us, for everyone: universal narratives told through a culturally specific lens to entertain, educate and bridge the global divides. Listen to WAj and DAnielle Moodie on Democracy-ish  He frequently appears on television and podcasts for his brilliant, incisive, and witty political commentary. Born in the Bay Area, California to Pakistani immigrant parents, Ali went to school wearing Husky pants and knowing only three words of English. He graduated from UC Berkeley with an English major and became a licensed attorney. He knows what it feels like to be the token minority in the classroom and the darkest person in a boardroom. Like Spiderman, he's often had the power and responsibility of being the cultural ambassador of an entire group of people, those who are often marginalized, silenced, or reduced to stereotypes. His essays, interviews, and reporting have appeared in The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Washington Post, The Guardian, and New York Review of Books. Ali has spoken at many organizations, from Google to Walmart-Jet to Princeton University to the United Nations to the Chandni Indian-Pakistani Restaurant in Newark, California, and his living room in front of his three kids. Join us Monday's and Thursday's at 8EST for our Bi-Weekly Happy Hour Hangout!  Pete on Blue Sky Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube  Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art  Hire DJ Monzyk to build your website or help you with Marketing  

A year ago, the great American historian Adam Hochschild came on KEEN ON AMERICA to discuss American Midnight, his best selling account of the crisis of American democracy after World War One. A year later, is history really repeating itself in today's crisis of American democracy? For Hochschild, there are certainly parallels between the current political situation in the US and post WW1 America. Describing how wartime hysteria and fear of communism led to unprecedented government repression, including mass imprisonment for political speech, vigilante violence, and press censorship. Hochschild notes eery similarities to today's Trump's administration. He expresses concern about today's threats to democratic institutions while suggesting the importance of understanding Trump supporters' grievances and finding ways to bridge political divides. Five Key Takeaways* The period of 1917-1921 in America saw extreme government repression, including imprisoning people for speech, vigilante violence, and widespread censorship—what Hochschild calls America's "Trumpiest" era before Trump.* American history shows recurring patterns of nativism, anti-immigrant sentiment, and scapegoating that politicians exploit during times of economic or social stress.* The current political climate shows concerning parallels to this earlier period, including intimidation of opposition, attacks on institutions, and the widespread acceptance of authoritarian tendencies.* Hochschild emphasizes the importance of understanding the grievances and suffering that lead people to support authoritarian figures rather than dismissing their concerns.* Despite current divisions, Hochschild believes reconciliation is possible and necessary, pointing to historical examples like President Harding pardoning Eugene Debs after Wilson imprisoned him. Full Transcript Andrew Keen: Hello, everybody. We recently celebrated our 2500th edition of Keen On. Some people suggest I'm mad. I think I probably am to do so many shows. Just over a little more than a year ago, we celebrated our 2000th show featuring one of America's most distinguished historians, Adam Hochschild. I'm thrilled that Adam is joining us again a year later. He's the author of "American Midnight, The Great War, A Violent Peace, and Democracy's Forgotten Crisis." This was his last book. He's the author of many other books. He is now working on a book on the Great Depression. He's joining us from his home in Berkeley, California. Adam, to borrow a famous phrase or remix a famous phrase, a year is a long time in American history.Adam Hochschild: That's true, Andrew. I think this past year, or actually this past 100 days or so has been a very long and very difficult time in American history that we all saw coming to some degree, but I don't think we realized it would be as extreme and as rapid as it has been.Andrew Keen: Your book, Adam, "American Midnight, A Great War of Violent Peace and Democracy's Forgotten Crisis," is perhaps the most prescient warning. When you researched that you were saying before we went live that your books usually take you between four and five years, so you couldn't really have planned for this, although I guess you began writing and researching American Midnight during the Trump 1.0 regime. Did you write it as a warning to something like is happening today in America?Adam Hochschild: Well, I did start writing it and did most of the work on it during Trump's first term in office. So I was very struck by the parallels. And they're in plain sight for everybody to see. There are various dark currents that run through this country of ours. Nativism, threats to deport troublemakers. Politicians stirring up violent feelings against immigrants, vigilante violence, all those things have been with us for a long time. I've always been fascinated by that period, 1917 to 21, when they surged to the surface in a very nasty way. That was the subject of the book. Naturally, I hoped we wouldn't have to go through anything like that again, but here we are definitely going through it again.Andrew Keen: You wrote a lovely piece earlier this month for the Washington Post. "America was at its Trumpiest a hundred years ago. Here's how to prevent the worst." What did you mean by Trumpiest, Adam? I'm not sure if you came up with that title, but I know you like the term. You begin the essay. What was the Trumpiest period in American life before Donald Trump?Adam Hochschild: Well, I didn't invent the word, but I certainly did use it in the piece. What I meant by that is that when you look at this period just over 100 years ago, 1917 to 1921, Woodrow Wilson's second term in office, two things happened in 1917 that kicked off a kind of hysteria in this country. One was that Wilson asked the American Congress to declare war on Germany, which it promptly did, and when a country enters a major war, especially a world war, it sets off a kind of hysteria. And then that was redoubled some months later when the country received news of the Russian Revolution, and many people in the establishment in America were afraid the Russian Revolution might come to the United States.So, a number of things happened. One was that there was a total hysteria against all things German. There were bonfires of German books all around the country. People would take German books out of libraries, schools, college and university libraries and burn them in the street. 19 such bonfires in Ohio alone. You can see pictures of it on the internet. There was hysteria about the German language. I heard about this from my father as I was growing up because his father was a Jewish immigrant from Germany. They lived in New York City. They spoke German around the family dinner table, but they were terrified of doing so on the street because you could get beaten up for that. Several states passed laws against speaking German in public or speaking German on the telephone. Eminent professors declared that German was a barbaric language. So there was that kind of hysteria.Then as soon as the United States declared war, Wilson pushed the Espionage Act through Congress, this draconian law, which essentially gave the government the right to lock up anybody who said something that was taken to be against the war. And they used this law in a devastating way. During those four years, roughly a thousand Americans spent a year or more in jail and a much larger number, shorter periods in jail solely for things that they wrote or said. These were people who were political prisoners sent to jail simply for something they wrote or said, the most famous of them was Eugene Debs, many times the socialist candidate for president. He'd gotten 6% of the popular vote in 1912 and in 1918. For giving an anti-war speech from a park bandstand in Ohio, he was sent to prison for 10 years. And he was still in prison two years after the war ended in November, 1920, when he pulled more than 900,000 votes for president from his jail cell in the federal penitentiary in Atlanta.So that was one phase of the repression, political prisoners. Another was vigilante violence. The government itself, the Department of Justice, chartered a vigilante group, something called the American Protective League, which went around roughing up people that it thought were evading the draft, beating up people at anti-war rallies, arresting people with citizens arrest whom they didn't have their proper draft papers on them, holding them for hours or sometimes for days until they could produce the right paperwork.Andrew Keen: I remember, Adam, you have a very graphic description of some of this violence in American Midnight. There was a story, was it a union leader?Adam Hochschild: Well, there is so much violence that happened during that time. I begin the book with a graphic description of vigilantes raiding an office of the Wobblies, the Industrial Workers of the World, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, taking a bunch of wobblies out into the prairie at night, stripping them, whipping them, flogging them fiercely, and then tarring and feathering them, and firing shotguns over their heads so they would run off into the Prairie at Night. And they did. Those guys were lucky because they survive. Other people were killed by this vigilante violence.And the final thing about that period which I would mention is the press censorship. The Espionage Act gave the Postmaster General the power to declare any publication in the United States unmailable. And for a newspaper or a magazine that was trying to reach a national audience, the only way you could do so was through the US mail because there was no internet then. No radio, no TV, no other way of getting your publication to somebody. And this put some 75 newspapers and magazines that the government didn't like out of business. It in addition censored three or four hundred specific issues of other publications as well.So that's why I feel this is all a very dark period of American life. Ironically, that press censorship operation, because it was run by the postmaster general, who by the way loved being chief censor, it was ran out of the building that was then the post office headquarters in Washington, which a hundred years later became the Trump International Hotel. And for $4,000 a night, you could stay in the Postmaster General's suite.Andrew Keen: You, Adam, the First World War is a subject you're very familiar with. In addition to American Midnight, you wrote "To End All Wars, a story of loyalty and rebellion, 1914 to 18," which was another very successful of your historical recreations. Many countries around the world experience this turbulence, the violence. Of course, we had fascism in the 20s in Europe. And later in the 30s as well. America has a long history of violence. You talk about the violence after the First World War or after the declaration. But I was just in Montgomery, Alabama, went to the lynching museum there, which is considerably troubling. I'm sure you've been there. You're not necessarily a comparative political scientist, Adam. How does America, in its paranoia during the war and its clampdown on press freedom, on its violence, on its attempt to create an authoritarian political system, how does it compare to other democracies? Is some of this stuff uniquely American or is it a similar development around the world?Adam Hochschild: You see similar pressures almost any time that a major country is involved in a major war. Wars are never good for civil liberties. The First World War, to stick with that period of comparison, was a time that saw strong anti-war movements in all of the warring countries, in Germany and Britain and Russia. There were people who understood at the time that this war was going to remake the world for the worse in every way, which indeed it did, and who refused to fight. There were 800 conscientious objectors jailed in Russia, and Russia did not have much freedom of expression to begin with. In Germany, many distinguished people on the left, like Rosa Luxemburg, were sent to jail for most of the war.Britain was an interesting case because I think they had a much longer established tradition of free speech than did the countries on the continent. It goes way back and it's a distinguished and wonderful tradition. They were also worried for the first two and a half, three years of the war before the United States entered, that if they crack down too hard on their anti-war movement, it would upset people in the United States, which they were desperate to draw into the war on their side. Nonetheless, there were 6,000 conscientious objectors who were sent to jail in England. There was intermittent censorship of anti-war publications, although some were able to publish some of the time. There were many distinguished Britons, such as Bertrand Russell, the philosopher who later won a Nobel Prize, sent to jails for six months for his opposition to the war. So some of this happened all over.But I think in the United States, especially with these vigilante groups, it took a more violent form because remember the country at that time was only a few decades away from these frontier wars with the Indians. And the westward expansion of the United States during the 19th century, the western expansion of white settlement was an enormously bloody business that was almost genocidal for the Native Americans. Many people had participated in that. Many people saw that violence as integral to what the country was. So there was a pretty well-established tradition of settling differences violently.Andrew Keen: I'm sure you're familiar with Stephen Hahn's book, "A Liberal America." He teaches at NYU, a book which in some ways is very similar to yours, but covers all of American history. Hahn was recently on the Ezra Klein show, talking like you, like we're talking today, Adam, about the very American roots of Trumpism. Hahn, it's an interesting book, traces much of this back to Jackson and the wars of the frontier against Indians. Do you share his thesis on that front? Are there strong similarities between Jackson, Wilson, and perhaps even Trump?Adam Hochschild: Well, I regret to say I'm not familiar with Hahn's book, but I certainly do feel that that legacy of constant war for most of the 19th century against the Native Americans ran very deep in this country. And we must never forget how appealing it is to young men to take part in war. Unfortunately, all through history, there have been people very tempted by this. And I think when you have wars of conquest, such as happen in the American West, against people who are more poorly armed, or colonial wars such as Europe fought in Africa and Asia against much more poorly-armed opponents, these are especially appealing to young people. And in both the United States and in the European colonization of Africa, which I know something about. For young men joining in these colonizing or conquering adventures, there was a chance not just to get martial glory, but to also get rich in the process.Andrew Keen: You're all too familiar with colonial history, Adam. Another of your books was about King Leopold's Congo and the brutality there. Where was the most coherent opposition morally and politically to what was happening? My sense in Trump's America is perhaps the most persuasive and moral critique comes from the old Republican Center from people like David Brooks, Peter Wayno has been on the show many times, Jonathan Rausch. Where were people like Teddy Roosevelt in this narrative? Were there critics from the right as well as from the left?Adam Hochschild: Good question. I first of all would give a shout out to those Republican centrists who've spoken out against Trump, the McCain Republicans. There are some good people there - Romney, of course as well. They've been very forceful. There wasn't really an equivalent to that, a direct equivalent to that in the Wilson era. Teddy Roosevelt whom you mentioned was a far more ferocious drum beater than Wilson himself and was pushing Wilson to declare war long before Wilson did. Roosevelt really believed that war was good for the soul. He desperately tried to get Wilson to appoint him to lead a volunteer force, came up with an elaborate plan for this would be a volunteer army staffed by descendants of both Union and Confederate generals and by French officers as well and homage to the Marquis de Lafayette. Wilson refused to allow Roosevelt to do this, and plus Roosevelt was, I think, 58 years old at the time. But all four of Roosevelt's sons enlisted and joined in the war, and one of them was killed. And his father was absolutely devastated by this.So there was not really that equivalent to the McCain Republicans who are resisting Trump, so to speak. In fact, what resistance there was in the U.S. came mostly from the left, and it was mostly ruthlessly silenced, all these people who went to jail. It was silenced also because this is another important part of what happened, which is different from today. When the federal government passed the Espionage Act that gave it these draconian powers, state governments, many of them passed copycat laws. In fact, a federal justice department agent actually helped draft the law in New Hampshire. Montana locked up people serving more than 60 years cumulatively of hard labor for opposing the war. California had 70 people in prison. Even my hometown of Berkeley, California passed a copycat law. So, this martial spirit really spread throughout the country at that time.Andrew Keen: So you've mentioned that Debs was the great critic and was imprisoned and got a considerable number of votes in the election. You're writing a book now about the Great Depression and FDR's involvement in it. FDR, of course, was a distant cousin of Teddy Roosevelt. At this point, he was an aspiring Democratic politician. Where was the critique within the mainstream Democratic party? Were people like FDR, who had a position in the Wilson administration, wasn't he naval secretary?Adam Hochschild: He was assistant secretary of the Navy. And he went to Europe during the war. For an aspiring politician, it's always very important to say I've been at the front. And so he went to Europe and certainly made no sign of resistance. And then in 1920, he was the democratic candidate for vice president. That ticket lost of course.Andrew Keen: And just to remind ourselves, this was before he became disabled through polio, is that correct?Adam Hochschild: That's right. That happened in the early 20s and it completely changed his life and I think quite deepened him as a person. He was a very ambitious social climbing young politician before then but I think he became something deeper. Also the political parties at the time were divided each party between right and left wings or war mongering and pacifist wings. And when the Congress voted on the war, there were six senators who voted against going to war and 50 members of the House of Representatives. And those senators and representatives came from both parties. We think of the Republican Party as being more conservative, but it had some staunch liberals in it. The most outspoken voice against the war in the Senate was Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin, who was a Republican.Andrew Keen: I know you write about La Follette in American Midnight, but couldn't one, Adam, couldn't won before the war and against domestic repression. You wrote an interesting piece recently for the New York Review of Books about the Scopes trial. William Jennings Bryan, of course, was involved in that. He was the defeated Democratic candidate, what in about three or four presidential elections in the past. In the early 20th century. What was Bryan's position on this? He had been against the war, is that correct? But I'm guessing he would have been quite critical of some of the domestic repression.Adam Hochschild: You know, I should know the answer to that, Andrew, but I don't. He certainly was against going to war. He had started out in Wilson's first term as Wilson's secretary of state and then resigned in protest against the military buildup and what he saw as a drift to war, and I give him great credit for that. I don't recall his speaking out against the repression after it began, once the US entered the war, but I could be wrong on that. It was not something that I researched. There were just so few voices speaking out. I think I would remember if he had been one of them.Andrew Keen: Adam, again, I'm thinking out loud here, so please correct me if this is a dumb question. What would it be fair to say that one of the things that distinguished the United States from the European powers during the First World War in this period it remained an incredibly insular provincial place barely involved in international politics with a population many of them were migrants themselves would come from Europe but nonetheless cut off from the world. And much of that accounted for the anti-immigrant, anti-foreign hysteria. That exists in many countries, but perhaps it was a little bit more pronounced in the America of the early 20th century, and perhaps in some ways in the early 21st century.Adam Hochschild: Well, we remain a pretty insular place in many ways. A few years ago, I remember seeing the statistic in the New York Times, I have not checked to see whether it's still the case, but I suspect it is that half the members of the United States Congress do not have passports. And we are more cut off from the world than people living in most of the countries of Europe, for example. And I think that does account for some of the tremendous feeling against immigrants and refugees. Although, of course, this is something that is common, not just in Europe, but in many countries all over the world. And I fear it's going to get all the stronger as climate change generates more and more refugees from the center of the earth going to places farther north or farther south where they can get away from parts of the world that have become almost unlivable because of climate change.Andrew Keen: I wonder Democratic Congress people perhaps aren't leaving the country because they fear they won't be let back in. What were the concrete consequences of all this? You write in your book about a young lawyer, J. Edgar Hoover, of course, who made his name in this period. He was very much involved in the Palmer Raids. He worked, I think his first job was for Palmer. How do you see this structurally? Of course, many historians, biographers of Hoover have seen this as the beginning of some sort of American security state. Is that over-reading it, exaggerating what happened in this period?Adam Hochschild: Well, security state may be too dignified a word for the hysteria that reigned in the country at that time. One of the things we've long had in the United States is a hysteria, paranoia directed at immigrants who are coming from what seems to be a new and threatening part of the world. In the mid-19th century, for example, we had the Know-Nothing Party, as it was called, who were violently opposed to Catholic immigrants coming from Ireland. Now, they were people of Anglo-Saxon descent, pretty much, who felt that these Irish Catholics were a tremendous threat to the America that they knew. There was much violence. There were people killed in riots against Catholic immigrants. There were Catholic merchants who had their stores burned and so on.Then it began to shift. The Irish sort of became acceptable, but by the end of the 19th century, beginning of the 20th century the immigrants coming from Europe were now coming primarily from southern and eastern Europe. In other words, Italians, Sicilians, Poles, and Jews. And they became the target of the anti-immigrant crusaders with much hysteria directed against them. It was further inflamed at that time by the Eugenics movement, which was something very strong, where people believed that there was a Nordic race that was somehow superior to everybody else, that the Mediterraneans were inferior people, and that the Africans were so far down the scale, barely worth talking about. And this culminated in 1924 with the passage of the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act that year, which basically slammed the door completely on immigrants coming from Asia and slowed to an absolute trickle those coming from Europe for the next 40 years or so.Andrew Keen: It wasn't until the mid-60s that immigration changed, which is often overlooked. Some people, even on the left, suggest that it was a mistake to radically reform the Immigration Act because we would have inevitably found ourselves back in this situation. What do you think about that, Adam?Adam Hochschild: Well, I think a country has the right to regulate to some degree its immigration, but there always will be immigration in this world. I mean, my ancestors all came from other countries. The Jewish side of my family, I'm half Jewish, were lucky to get out of Europe in plenty of time. Some relatives who stayed there were not lucky and perished in the Holocaust. So who am I to say that somebody fleeing a repressive regime in El Salvador or somewhere else doesn't have the right to come here? I think we should be pretty tolerant, especially if people fleeing countries where they really risk death for one reason or another. But there is always gonna be this strong anti-immigrant feeling because unscrupulous politicians like Donald Trump, and he has many predecessors in this country, can point to immigrants and blame them for the economic misfortunes that many Americans are experiencing for reasons that don't have anything to do with immigration.Andrew Keen: Fast forward Adam to today. You were involved in an interesting conversation on the Nation about the role of universities in the resistance. What do you make of this first hundred days, I was going to say hundred years that would be a Freudian error, a hundred days of the Trump regime, the role, of big law, big universities, newspapers, media outlets? In this emerging opposition, are you chilled or encouraged?Adam Hochschild: Well, I hope it's a hundred days and not a hundred years. I am moderately encouraged. I was certainly deeply disappointed at the outset to see all of those tech titans go to Washington, kiss the ring, contribute to Trump's inauguration festivities, be there in the front row. Very depressing spectacle, which kind of reminds one of how all the big German industrialists fell into line so quickly behind Hitler. And I'm particularly depressed to see the changes in the media, both the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post becoming much more tame when it came to endorsing.Andrew Keen: One of the reasons for that, Adam, of course, is that you're a long-time professor at the journalism school at UC Berkeley, so you've been on the front lines.Adam Hochschild: So I really care about a lively press that has free expression. And we also have a huge part of the media like Fox News and One American Network and other outlets that are just pouring forth a constant fire hose of lies and falsehood.Andrew Keen: And you're being kind of calling it a fire hose. I think we could come up with other terms for it. Anyway, a sewage pipe, but that's another issue.Adam Hochschild: But I'm encouraged when I see media organizations that take a stand. There are places like the New York Times, like CNN, like MSNBC, like the major TV networks, which you can read or watch and really find an honest picture of what's going on. And I think that's a tremendously important thing for a country to have. And that you look at the countries that Donald Trump admires, like Putin's Russia, for example, they don't have this. So I value that. I want to keep it. I think that's tremendously important.I was sorry, of course, that so many of those big law firms immediately cave to these ridiculous and unprecedented demands that he made, contributing pro bono work to his causes in return for not getting banned from government buildings. Nothing like that has happened in American history before, and the people in those firms that made those decisions should really be ashamed of themselves. I was glad to see Harvard University, which happens to be my alma mater, be defiant after caving in a little bit on a couple of issues. They finally put their foot down and said no. And I must say, feeling Harvard patriotism is a very rare emotion for me. But this is the first time in 50 years that I've felt some of it.Andrew Keen: You may even give a donation, Adam.Adam Hochschild: And I hope other universities are going to follow its lead, and it looks like they will. But this is pretty unprecedented, a president coming after universities with this determined of ferocity. And he's going after nonprofit organizations as well. There will be many fights there as well, I'm sure we're just waiting to hear about the next wave of attacks which will be on places like the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation and other big nonprofits. So hold on and wait for that and I hope they are as defiant as possible too.Andrew Keen: It's a little bit jarring to hear a wise historian like yourself use the word unprecedented. Is there much else of this given that we're talking historically and the similarities with the period after the first world war, is there anything else unprecedented about Trumpism?Adam Hochschild: I think in a way, we have often had, or not often, but certainly sometimes had presidents in this country who wanted to assume almost dictatorial powers. Richard Nixon certainly is the most recent case before Trump. And he was eventually stopped and forced to leave office. Had that not happened, I think he would have very happily turned himself into a dictator. So we know that there are temptations that come with the desire for absolute power everywhere. But Trump has gotten farther along on this process and has shown less willingness to do things like abide by court orders. The way that he puts pressure on Republican members of Congress.To me, one of the most startling, disappointing, remarkable, and shocking things about these first hundred days is how very few Republican members to the House or Senate have dared to defy Trump on anything. At most, these ridiculous set of appointees that he muscled through the Senate. At most, they got three Republican votes against them. They couldn't muster the fourth necessary vote. And in the House, only one or two Republicans have voted against Trump on anything. And of course, he has threatened to have Elon Musk fund primaries against any member of Congress who does defy him. And I can't help but think that these folks must also be afraid of physical violence because Trump has let all the January 6th people out of jail and the way vigilantes like that operate is they first go after the traitors on their own side then they come for the rest of us just as in the first real burst of violence in Hitler's Germany was the night of the long knives against another faction of the Nazi Party. Then they started coming for the Jews.Andrew Keen: Finally, Adam, your wife, Arlie, is another very distinguished writer.Adam Hochschild: I've got a better picture of her than that one though.Andrew Keen: Well, I got some very nice photos. This one is perhaps a little, well she's thinking Adam. Everyone knows Arlie from her hugely successful work, "Strangers in their Own Land." She has a new book out, "Stolen Pride, Lost Shame and the Rise of the Right." I don't want to put words into Arlie's mouth and she certainly wouldn't let me do that, Adam, but would it be fair to say that her reading, certainly of recent American history, is trying to bring people back together. She talks about the lessons she learned from her therapist brother. And in some ways, I see her as a kind of marriage counselor in America. Given what's happening today in America with Trump, is this still an opportunity? This thing is going to end and it will end in some ways rather badly and perhaps bloodily one way or the other. But is this still a way to bring people, to bring Americans back together? Can America be reunited? What can we learn from American Midnight? I mean, one of the more encouraging stories I remember, and please correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't it Coolidge or Harding who invited Debs when he left prison to the White House? So American history might be in some ways violent, but it's also made up of chapters of forgiveness.Adam Hochschild: That's true. I mean, that Debs-Harding example is a wonderful one. Here is Debs sent to prison by Woodrow Wilson for a 10-year term. And Debs, by the way, had been in jail before for his leadership of a railway strike when he was a railway workers union organizer. Labor organizing was a very dangerous profession in those days. But Debs was a fairly gentle man, deeply committed to nonviolence. About a year into, a little less than a year into his term, Warren Harding, Woodrow Wilson's successor, pardoned Debs, let him out of prison, invited him to visit the White House on his way home. And they had a half hour's chat. And when he left the building, Debs told reporters, "I've run for the White house five times, but this is the first time I've actually gotten here." Harding privately told a friend. This was revealed only after his death, that he said, "Debs was right about that war. We never should have gotten involved in it."So yeah, there can be reconciliation. There can be talk across these great differences that we have, and I think there are a number of organizations that are working on that specific project, getting people—Andrew Keen: We've done many of those shows. I'm sure you're familiar with the organization Braver Angels, which seems to be a very good group.Adam Hochschild: So I think it can be done. I really think it could be done and it has to be done and it's important for those of us who are deeply worried about Trump, as you and I are, to understand the grievances and the losses and the suffering that has made Trump's backers feel that here is somebody who can get them out of the pickle that they're in. We have to understand that, and the Democratic Party has to come up with promising alternatives for them, which it really has not done. It didn't really offer one in this last election. And the party itself is in complete disarray right now, I fear.Andrew Keen: I think perhaps Arlie should run for president. She would certainly do a better job than Kamala Harris in explaining it. And of course they're both from Berkeley. Finally, Adam, you're very familiar with the history of Africa, Southern Africa, your family I think was originally from there. Might we need after all this, when hopefully the smoke clears, might we need a Mandela style truth and reconciliation committee to make sense of what's happening?Adam Hochschild: My family's actually not from there, but they were in business there.Andrew Keen: Right, they were in the mining business, weren't they?Adam Hochschild: That's right. Truth and Reconciliation Committee. Well, I don't think it would be on quite the same model as South Africa's. But I certainly think we need to find some way of talking across the differences that we have. Coming from the left side of that divide I just feel all too often when I'm talking to people who feel as I do about the world that there is a kind of contempt or disinterest in Trump's backers. These are people that I want to understand, that we need to understand. We need to understand them in order to hear what their real grievances are and to develop alternative policies that are going to give them a real alternative to vote for. Unless we can do that, we're going to have Trump and his like for a long time, I fear.Andrew Keen: Wise words, Adam. I hope in the next 500 episodes of this show, things will improve. We'll get you back on the show, keep doing your important work, and I'm very excited to learn more about your new project, which we'll come to in the next few months or certainly years. Thank you so much.Adam Hochschild: OK, thank you, Andrew. Good being with you. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

April 23, 2025 - With the ever-growing need to understand ourselves and humanity as a whole, it is necessary to examine the concepts of morality, ethics and universal values as guiding principles of the human condition. With generous support from Y.T. Hwang Family Foundation, The Korea Society presents a Series on Ethics and Common Values. This series promotes the understanding of central themes of our human existence - morality, ethics, personal responsibility, compassion and civility - through a series of lectures by distinguished speakers and conversation with extraordinary individuals who exemplify the universal values in line with the mission of Y. T. Hwang Family Foundation and The Korea Society. The Korea Society and Y. T. Hwang Family Foundation is proud to present Ilyon Woo in a conversation with Ed Park. Ilyon Woo is the New York Times best-selling author of Master Slave Husband Wife: An Epic Journey from Slavery to Freedom, which won the 2024 Pulitzer Prize in Biography. Time Magazine called Master Slave Husband Wife an “edge-of-your-seat drama”; The Wall Street Journal pronounced it: “A narrative of such courage and resourcefulness it seems too dashing to be true.... a ‘genuine nail-biter.'” It was one of the New York Times's “10 Best Books of 2023” and People Magazine's “Top Ten Books of 2023,” also named a best book of the year by The New Yorker, Time, NPR, Smithsonian Magazine, Boston, Chicago Public Library, and Oprah Daily. A finalist for a Kirkus Prize, the book was long-listed for the Carnegie Medal, nominated for the Goodreads Choice Awards, and supported by a Whiting Creative Nonfiction Writing Grant. Woo is also the author of The Great Divorce: A Nineteenth-Century Mother's Extraordinary Fight Against Her Husband, the Shakers, and Her Times. Her writing has appeared in The Boston Globe, The Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, and The New York Times. Woo has traveled the country to speak at bookstores, museums, schools, and book festivals, and she has been featured on such programs as NPR's Morning Edition, All Things Considered, and CBS Sunday Morning. She holds a BA in the Humanities from Yale College and a PhD in English from Columbia University. Ed Park is the author of the novels Same Bed Different Dreams (2023), a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize and winner of the Los Angeles Times Book Prize, and Personal Days (2008), a finalist for the PEN/Hemingway Award. His fiction, essays, and reviews have appeared in The New Yorker, The New York Review of Books, Harper's, The Atlantic, Bookforum, McSweeney's, and many other publications. He is a founding editor of The Believer and the former literary editor of The Village Voice, and has worked in newspapers and book publishing. He currently teaches writing at Princeton University. For more information, please visit the link below: https://www.koreasociety.org/arts-culture/item/1980-y-t-hwang-family-foundation-series-on-ethics-common-values-a-conversation-with-ilyon-woo

This interview offers an insightful discussion with anthropologist Tanya Luhrmann, whose pioneering scholarship has significantly advanced our comprehension of magic, esotericism, and witchcraft. In this academic interview, we critically examine Luhrmann's influential notion of "interpretive drift"—the incremental cognitive process by which individuals progressively adopt and internalise magical beliefs and practices.We engage with her seminal ethnographic research on contemporary magical and esoteric communities, investigating how practitioners utilise rituals, visualisation techniques, and imaginative practices to foster potent experiential encounters. Luhrmann elucidates the psychological and sociocultural mechanisms that underpin and sustain belief in magic and witchcraft, illuminating how rational actors negotiate and integrate esoteric practices within their quotidian existence.Employing ethnographic case studies and rigorous theoretical analyses, we explore the broader implications of Luhrmann's findings for understanding the endurance and attractiveness of magical thought within contemporary secularised societies. Scholars, practitioners, and those intrigued by the enduring relevance of magical belief will find this discussion academically stimulating, providing nuanced insights into humanity's enduring inclination to engage with the transcendent and extraordinary.Get Prof Luhrmann's bookshttps://amzn.to/4lDeYKjhttps://amzn.to/42zNVqAhttps://amzn.to/4jISm9vhttps://amzn.to/3Gfz11fABOUT OUR GUESTanya Luhrmann is a professor of anthropology at Stanford University, specialising in the study of spiritual experiences and their relation to religious practices. In her research, she analyses the ways in which people in various religions and spiritualities ‘kindle' experiences of invisible others like gods, spirits and demons. Among the groups she has studied are evangelical Christians, Contemporary Pagans, magicians, Zoroastrians, Catholics, Santeria initiates, and newly orthodox Jews. She links their experiences to a variety of practices like prayer, ritual, storytelling and the cultivation of the inner senses.She was named to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2003, received a John Guggenheim Fellowship award in 2007, and was elected to the American Philosophical Society in 2022. Her book ‘When God Talks Back' was named a ‘New York Times' Notable Book of the Year and a ‘Kirkus Reviews' Best Book of the Year. It was awarded the $100,000 Grawemeyer Prize for Religion by the University of Louisville. She has published over thirty op-eds in ‘The New York Times', and her work has been featured in ‘The New Yorker', ‘The New York Review of Books', the ‘Times Literary Supplement', ‘Science News', and many other publications. She is the author of ‘Persuasions of the Witch's Craft', ‘The Good Parsi', ‘Of Two Minds', ‘When God Talks Back', ‘Our Most Troubling Madness', and ‘How God Becomes Real', and is currently at work on a book entitled ‘Voices'.If you want to participate in her research, reach out to her atluhrmann@stanford.eduCONNECT & SUPPORT

Radhika Jones is the fifth editor-in-chief of Vanity Fair. She previously held senior editorial roles at The New York Times, Time, and The Paris Review. She also was the managing editor at Grand Street, an editor at Artforum, and the arts editor of The Moscow Times, where she began her career. Jones holds a B.A. from Harvard University and a Ph.D. in English and comparative literature from Columbia, where she has also taught courses in writing and literature. Born in New York City, she grew up in Cincinnati and Ridgefield, Connecticut. _________________________________ The Critic and Her Publics Hosted by Merve Emre • Edited by Michele Moses • Music by Dani Lencioni • Art by Leanne Shapton • Sponsored by Alfred A. Knopf The Critic and Her Publics is a co-production between the Shapiro Center for Creative Writing and Criticism at Wesleyan University, New York Review of Books, and Lit Hub.

So what, exactly, was “The Enlightenment”? According to the Princeton historian David A. Bell, it was an intellectual movement roughly spanning the early 18th century through to the French Revolution. In his Spring 2025 Liberties Quarterly piece “The Enlightenment, Then and Now”, Bell charts the Enlightenment as a complex intellectual movement centered in Paris but with hubs across Europe and America. He highlights key figures like Montesquieu, Voltaire, Kant, and Franklin, discussing their contributions to concepts of religious tolerance, free speech, and rationality. In our conversation, Bell addresses criticisms of the Enlightenment, including its complicated relationship with colonialism and slavery, while arguing that its principles of freedom and reason remain relevant today. 5 Key Takeaways* The Enlightenment emerged in the early 18th century (around 1720s) and was characterized by intellectual inquiry, skepticism toward religion, and a growing sense among thinkers that they were living in an "enlightened century."* While Paris was the central hub, the Enlightenment had multiple centers including Scotland, Germany, and America, with thinkers like Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant, Hume, and Franklin contributing to its development.* The Enlightenment introduced the concept of "society" as a sphere of human existence separate from religion and politics, forming the basis of modern social sciences.* The movement had a complex relationship with colonialism and slavery - many Enlightenment thinkers criticized slavery, but some of their ideas about human progress were later used to justify imperialism.* According to Bell, rather than trying to "return to the Enlightenment," modern society should selectively adopt and adapt its valuable principles of free speech, religious tolerance, and education to create our "own Enlightenment."David Avrom Bell is a historian of early modern and modern Europe at Princeton University. His most recent book, published in 2020 by Farrar, Straus and Giroux, is Men on Horseback: The Power of Charisma in the Age of Revolution. Described in the Journal of Modern History as an "instant classic," it is available in paperback from Picador, in French translation from Fayard, and in Italian translation from Viella. A study of how new forms of political charisma arose in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the book shows that charismatic authoritarianism is as modern a political form as liberal democracy, and shares many of the same origins. Based on exhaustive research in original sources, the book includes case studies of the careers of George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, Toussaint Louverture and Simon Bolivar. The book's Introduction can be read here. An online conversation about the book with Annette Gordon-Reed, hosted by the Cullman Center of the New York Public Library, can be viewed here. Links to material about the book, including reviews in The New York Review of Books, The Guardian, Harper's, The New Republic, The Nation, Le Monde, The Los Angeles Review of Books and other venues can be found here. Bell is also the author of six previous books. He has published academic articles in both English and French and contributes regularly to general interest publications on a variety of subjects, ranging from modern warfare, to contemporary French politics, to the impact of digital technology on learning and scholarship, and of course French history. A list of his publications from 2023 and 2024 can be found here. His Substack newsletter can be found here. His writings have been translated into French, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Hebrew, Swedish, Polish, Russian, German, Croatian, Italian, Turkish and Japanese. At the History Department at Princeton University, he holds the Sidney and Ruth Lapidus Chair in the Era of North Atlantic Revolutions, and offers courses on early modern Europe, on military history, and on the early modern French empire. Previously, he spent fourteen years at Johns Hopkins University, including three as Dean of Faculty in its School of Arts and Sciences. From 2020 to 2024 he served as Director of the Shelby Cullom Davis Center for Historical Studies at Princeton. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a corresponding fellow of the British Academy. Bell's new project is a history of the Enlightenment. A preliminary article from the project was published in early 2022 by Modern Intellectual History. Another is now out in French History.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. FULL TRANSCRIPTAndrew Keen: Hello everybody, in these supposedly dark times, the E word comes up a lot, the Enlightenment. Are we at the end of the Enlightenment or the beginning? Was there even an Enlightenment? My guest today, David Bell, a professor of history, very distinguished professor of history at Princeton University, has an interesting piece in the spring issue of It is One of our, our favorite quarterlies here on Keen on America, Bell's piece is The Enlightenment Then and Now, and David is joining us from the home of the Enlightenment, perhaps Paris in France, where he's on sabbatical hard life. David being an academic these days, isn't it?David Bell: Very difficult. I'm having to suffer the Parisian bread and croissant. It's terrible.Andrew Keen: Yeah. Well, I won't keep you too long. Is Paris then, or France? Is it the home of the Enlightenment? I know there are many Enlightenments, the French, the Scottish, maybe even the English, perhaps even the American.David Bell: It's certainly one of the homes of the Enlightenment, and it's probably the closest that the Enlightened had to a center, absolutely. But as you say, there were Edinburgh, Glasgow, plenty of places in Germany, Philadelphia, all those places have good claims to being centers of the enlightenment as well.Andrew Keen: All the same David, is it like one of those sports games in California where everyone gets a medal?David Bell: Well, they're different metals, right, but I think certainly Paris is where everybody went. I mean, if you look at the figures from the German Enlightenment, from the Scottish Enlightenment from the American Enlightenment they all tended to congregate in Paris and the Parisians didn't tend to go anywhere else unless they were forced to. So that gives you a pretty good sense of where the most important center was.Andrew Keen: So David, before we get to specifics, map out for us, because everyone is perhaps as familiar or comfortable with the history of the Enlightenment, and certainly as you are. When did it happen? What years? And who are the leaders of this thing called the Enlightenment?David Bell: Well, that's a big question. And I'm afraid, of course, that if you ask 10 historians, you'll get 10 different answers.Andrew Keen: Well, I'm only asking you, so I only want one answer.David Bell: So I would say that the Enlightenment really gets going around the first couple of decades of the 18th century. And that's when people really start to think that they are actually living in what they start to call an Enlightenment century. There are a lot of reasons for this. They are seeing what we now call the scientific revolution. They're looking at the progress that has been made with that. They are experiencing the changes in the religious sphere, including the end of religious wars, coming with a great deal of skepticism about religion. They are living in a relative period of peace where they're able to speculate much more broadly and daringly than before. But it's really in those first couple of decades that they start thinking of themselves as living in an enlightened century. They start defining themselves as something that would later be called the enlightenment. So I would say that it's, really, really there between maybe the end of the 17th century and 1720s that it really gets started.Andrew Keen: So let's have some names, David, of philosophers, I guess. I mean, if those are the right words. I know that there was a term in French. There is a term called philosoph. Were they the founders, the leaders of the Enlightenment?David Bell: Well, there is a... Again, I don't want to descend into academic quibbling here, but there were lots of leaders. Let me give an example, though. So the year 1721 is a remarkable year. So in the year, 1721, two amazing events happened within a couple of months of each other. So in May, Montesquieu, one of the great philosophers by any definition, publishes his novel called Persian Letters. And this is an incredible novel. Still, I think one of greatest novels ever written, and it's very daring. It is the account, it is supposedly a an account written by two Persian travelers to Europe who are writing back to people in Isfahan about what they're seeing. And it is very critical of French society. It is very of religion. It is, as I said, very daring philosophically. It is a product in part of the increasing contact between Europe and the rest of the world that is also very central to the Enlightenment. So that novel comes out. So it's immediately, you know, the police try to suppress it. But they don't have much success because it's incredibly popular and Montesquieu doesn't suffer any particular problems because...Andrew Keen: And the French police have never been the most efficient police force in the world, have they?David Bell: Oh, they could be, but not in this case. And then two months later, after Montesquieu published this novel, there's a German philosopher much less well-known than Montesqiu, than Christian Bolz, who is a professor at the Universität Haller in Prussia, and he gives an oration in Latin, a very typical university oration for the time, about Chinese philosophy, in which he says that the Chinese have sort of proved to the world, particularly through the writings of Confucius and others, that you can have a virtuous society without religion. Obviously very controversial. Statement for the time it actually gets him fired from his job, he has to leave the Kingdom of Prussia within 48 hours on penalty of death, starts an enormous controversy. But here are two events, both of which involving non-European people, involving the way in which Europeans are starting to look out at the rest of the world and starting to imagine Europe as just one part of a larger humanity, and at the same time they are starting to speculate very daringly about whether you can have. You know, what it means to have a society, do you need to have religion in order to have morality in society? Do you need the proper, what kind of government do you need to to have virtuous conduct and a proper society? So all of these things get, you know, really crystallize, I think, around these two incidents as much as anything. So if I had to pick a single date for when the enlightenment starts, I'd probably pick that 1721.Andrew Keen: And when was, David, I thought you were going to tell me about the earthquake in Lisbon, when was that earthquake?David Bell: That earthquake comes quite a bit later. That comes, and now historians should be better with dates than I am. It's in the 1750s, I think it's the late 1750's. Again, this historian is proving he's getting a very bad grade for forgetting the exact date, but it's in 1750. So that's a different kind of event, which sparks off a great deal of commentary, because it's a terrible earthquake. It destroys most of the city of Lisbon, it destroys other cities throughout Portugal, and it leads a lot of the philosophy to philosophers at the time to be speculating very daringly again on whether there is any kind of real purpose to the universe and whether there's any kind divine purpose. Why would such a terrible thing happen? Why would God do such a thing to his followers? And certainly VoltaireAndrew Keen: Yeah, Votav, of course, comes to mind of questioning.David Bell: And Condit, Voltaire's novel Condit gives a very good description of the earthquake in Lisbon and uses that as a centerpiece. Voltair also read other things about the earthquake, a poem about Lisbon earthquake. But in Condit he gives a lasting, very scathing portrait of the Catholic Church in general and then of what happens in Portugal. And so the Lisbon Earthquake is certainly another one of the events, but it happens considerably later. Really in the middle of the end of life.Andrew Keen: So, David, you believe in this idea of the Enlightenment. I take your point that there are more than one Enlightenment in more than one center, but in broad historical terms, the 18th century could be defined at least in Western and Northern Europe as the period of the Enlightenment, would that be a fair generalization?David Bell: I think it's perfectly fair generalization. Of course, there are historians who say that it never happened. There's a conservative British historian, J.C.D. Clark, who published a book last summer, saying that the Enlightenment is a kind of myth, that there was a lot of intellectual activity in Europe, obviously, but that the idea that it formed a coherent Enlightenment was really invented in the 20th century by a bunch of progressive reformers who wanted to claim a kind of venerable and august pedigree for their own reform, liberal reform plans. I think that's an exaggeration. People in the 18th century defined very clearly what was going on, both people who were in favor of it and people who are against it. And while you can, if you look very closely at it, of course it gets a bit fuzzy. Of course it's gets, there's no single, you can't define a single enlightenment project or a single enlightened ideology. But then, I think people would be hard pressed to define any intellectual movement. You know, in perfect, incoherent terms. So the enlightenment is, you know by compared with almost any other intellectual movement certainly existed.Andrew Keen: In terms of a philosophy of the Enlightenment, the German thinker, Immanuel Kant, seems to be often, and when you describe him as the conscience or the brain or a mixture of the conscience and brain of the enlightenment, why is Kant and Kantian thinking so important in the development of the Enlightenment.David Bell: Well, that's a really interesting question. And one reason is because most of the Enlightenment was not very rigorously philosophical. A lot of the major figures of the enlightenment before Kant tended to be writing for a general public. And they often were writing with a very specific agenda. We look at Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau. Now you look at Adam Smith in Scotland. We look David Hume or Adam Ferguson. You look at Benjamin Franklin in the United States. These people wrote in all sorts of different genres. They wrote in, they wrote all sorts of different kinds of books. They have many different purposes and very few of them did a lot of what we would call rigorous academic philosophy. And Kant was different. Kant was very much an academic philosopher. Kant was nothing if not rigorous. He came at the end of the enlightenment by most people's measure. He wrote these very, very difficult, very rigorous, very brilliant works, such as The Creek of Pure Reason. And so, it's certainly been the case that people who wanted to describe the Enlightenment as a philosophy have tended to look to Kant. So for example, there's a great German philosopher and intellectual historian of the early 20th century named Ernst Kassirer, who had to leave Germany because of the Nazis. And he wrote a great book called The Philosophy of the Enlightened. And that leads directly to Immanuel Kant. And of course, Casir himself was a Kantian, identified with Kant. And so he wanted to make Kant, in a sense, the telos, the end point, the culmination, the fulfillment of the Enlightenment. But so I think that's why Kant has such a particularly important position. You're defining it both ways.Andrew Keen: I've always struggled to understand what Kant was trying to say. I'm certainly not alone there. Might it be fair to say that he was trying to transform the universe and certainly traditional Christian notions into the Enlightenment, so the entire universe, the world, God, whatever that means, that they were all somehow according to Kant enlightened.David Bell: Well, I think that I'm certainly no expert on Immanuel Kant. And I would say that he is trying to, I mean, his major philosophical works are trying to put together a system of philosophical thinking which will justify why people have to act morally, why people act rationally, without the need for Christian revelation to bolster them. That's a very, very crude and reductionist way of putting it, but that's essentially at the heart of it. At the same time, Kant was very much aware of his own place in history. So Kant didn't simply write these very difficult, thick, dense philosophical works. He also wrote things that were more like journalism or like tablets. He wrote a famous essay called What is Enlightenment? And in that, he said that the 18th century was the period in which humankind was simply beginning to. Reach a period of enlightenment. And he said, he starts the essay by saying, this is the period when humankind is being released from its self-imposed tutelage. And we are still, and he said we do not yet live in the midst of a completely enlightened century, but we are getting there. We are living in a century that is enlightening.Andrew Keen: So the seeds, the seeds of Hegel and maybe even Marx are incant in that German thinking, that historical thinking.David Bell: In some ways, in some ways of course Hegel very much reacts against Kant and so and then Marx reacts against Hegel. So it's not exactly.Andrew Keen: Well, that's the dialectic, isn't it, David?David Bell: A simple easy path from one to the other, no, but Hegel is unimaginable without Kant of course and Marx is unimagineable without Hegel.Andrew Keen: You note that Kant represents a shift in some ways into the university and the walls of the universities were going up, and that some of the other figures associated with the the Enlightenment and Scottish Enlightenment, human and Smith and the French Enlightenment Voltaire and the others, they were more generalist writers. Should we be nostalgic for the pre-university period in the Enlightenment, or? Did things start getting serious once the heavyweights, the academic heavyweighs like Emmanuel Kant got into this thing?David Bell: I think it depends on where we're talking about. I mean, Adam Smith was a professor at Glasgow in Edinburgh, so Smith, the Scottish Enlightenment was definitely at least partly in the universities. The German Enlightenment took place very heavily in universities. Christian Vodafoy I just mentioned was the most important German philosopher of the 18th century before Kant, and he had positions in university. Even the French university system, for a while, what's interesting about the French University system, particularly the Sorbonne, which was the theology faculty, It was that. Throughout the first half of the 18th century, there were very vigorous, very interesting philosophical debates going on there, in which the people there, particularly even Jesuits there, were very open to a lot of the ideas we now call enlightenment. They were reading John Locke, they were reading Mel Pench, they were read Dekalb. What happened though in the French universities was that as more daring stuff was getting published elsewhere. Church, the Catholic Church, started to say, all right, these philosophers, these philosophies, these are our enemies, these are people we have to get at. And so at that point, anybody who was in the university, who was still in dialog with these people was basically purged. And the universities became much less interesting after that. But to come back to your question, I do think that I am very nostalgic for that period. I think that the Enlightenment was an extraordinary period, because if you look between. In the 17th century, not all, but a great deal of the most interesting intellectual work is happening in the so-called Republic of Letters. It's happening in Latin language. It is happening on a very small circle of RUD, of scholars. By the 19th century following Kant and Hegel and then the birth of the research university in Germany, which is copied everywhere, philosophy and the most advanced thinking goes back into the university. And the 18th century, particularly in France, I will say, is a time when the most advanced thought is being written for a general public. It is being in the form of novels, of dialogs, of stories, of reference works, and it is very, very accessible. The most profound thought of the West has never been as accessible overall as in the 18 century.Andrew Keen: Again, excuse this question, it might seem a bit naive, but there's a lot of pre-Enlightenment work, books, thinking that we read now that's very accessible from Erasmus and Thomas More to Machiavelli. Why weren't characters like, or are characters like Erasmuus, More's Utopia, Machiavell's prints and discourses, why aren't they considered part of the Enlightenment? What's the difference between? Enlightened thinkers or the supposedly enlightened thinkers of the 18th century and thinkers and writers of the 16th and 17th centuries.David Bell: That's a good question, you know, I think you have to, you, you know, again, one has to draw a line somewhere. That's not a very good answer, of course. All these people that you just mentioned are, in one way or another, predecessors to the Enlightenment. And of course, there were lots of people. I don't mean to say that nobody wrote in an accessible way before 1700. Obviously, lots of the people you mentioned did. Although a lot of them originally wrote in Latin, Erasmus, also Thomas More. But I think what makes the Enlightened different is that you have, again, you have a sense. These people have have a sense that they are themselves engaged in a collective project, that it is a collective project of enlightenment, of enlightening the world. They believe that they live in a century of progress. And there are certain principles. They don't agree on everything by any means. The philosophy of enlightenment is like nothing more than ripping each other to shreds, like any decent group of intellectuals. But that said, they generally did believe That people needed to have freedom of speech. They believed that you needed to have toleration of different religions. They believed in education and the need for a broadly educated public that could be as broad as possible. They generally believed in keeping religion out of the public sphere as much as possible, so all those principles came together into a program that we can consider at least a kind of... You know, not that everybody read it at every moment by any means, but there is an identifiable enlightenment program there, and in this case an identifiable enlightenment mindset. One other thing, I think, which is crucial to the Enlightenment, is that it was the attention they started to pay to something that we now take almost entirely for granted, which is the idea of society. The word society is so entirely ubiquitous, we assume it's always been there, and in one sense it has, because the word societas is a Latin word. But until... The 18th century, the word society generally had a much narrower meaning. It referred to, you know, particular institution most often, like when we talk about the society of, you know, the American philosophical society or something like that. And the idea that there exists something called society, which is the general sphere of human existence that is separate from religion and is separate from the political sphere, that's actually something which only really emerged at the end of the 1600s. And it became really the focus of you know, much, if not most, of enlightenment thinking. When you look at someone like Montesquieu and you look something, somebody like Rousseau or Voltaire or Adam Smith, probably above all, they were concerned with understanding how society works, not how government works only, but how society, what social interactions are like beginning of what we would now call social science. So that's yet another thing that distinguishes the enlightened from people like Machiavelli, often people like Thomas More, and people like bonuses.Andrew Keen: You noted earlier that the idea of progress is somehow baked in, in part, and certainly when it comes to Kant, certainly the French Enlightenment, although, of course, Rousseau challenged that. I'm not sure whether Rousseaut, as always, is both in and out of the Enlightenment and he seems to be in and out of everything. How did the Enlightement, though, make sense of itself in the context of antiquity, as it was, of Terms, it was the Renaissance that supposedly discovered or rediscovered antiquity. How did many of the leading Enlightenment thinkers, writers, how did they think of their own society in the context of not just antiquity, but even the idea of a European or Western society?David Bell: Well, there was a great book, one of the great histories of the Enlightenment was written about more than 50 years ago by the Yale professor named Peter Gay, and the first part of that book was called The Modern Paganism. So it was about the, you know, it was very much about the relationship between the Enlightenment and the ancient Greek synonyms. And certainly the writers of the enlightenment felt a great deal of kinship with the ancient Greek synonymous. They felt a common bond, particularly in the posing. Christianity and opposing what they believed the Christian Church had wrought on Europe in suppressing freedom and suppressing free thought and suppassing free inquiry. And so they felt that they were both recovering but also going beyond antiquity at the same time. And of course they were all, I mean everybody at the time, every single major figure of the Enlightenment, their education consisted in large part of what we would now call classics, right? I mean, there was an educational reformer in France in the 1760s who said, you know, our educational system is great if the purpose is to train Roman centurions, if it's to train modern people who are not doing both so well. And it's true. I mean they would spend, certainly, you know in Germany, in much of Europe, in the Netherlands, even in France, I mean people were trained not simply to read Latin, but to write in Latin. In Germany, university courses took part in the Latin language. So there's an enormous, you know, so they're certainly very, very conversant with the Greek and Roman classics, and they identify with them to a very great extent. Someone like Rousseau, I mean, and many others, and what's his first reading? How did he learn to read by reading Plutarch? In translation, but he learns to read reading Plutach. He sees from the beginning by this enormous admiration for the ancients that we get from Bhutan.Andrew Keen: Was Socrates relevant here? Was the Enlightenment somehow replacing Aristotle with Socrates and making him and his spirit of Enlightenment, of asking questions rather than answering questions, the symbol of a new way of thinking?David Bell: I would say to a certain extent, so I mean, much of the Enlightenment criticizes scholasticism, medieval scholastic, very, very sharply, and medieval scholasticism is founded philosophically very heavily upon Aristotle, so to that extent. And the spirit of skepticism that Socrates embodied, the idea of taking nothing for granted and asking questions about everything, including questions of oneself, yes, absolutely. That said, while the great figures of the Red Plato, you know, Socrates was generally I mean, it was not all that present as they come. But certainly have people with people with red play-doh in the entire virus.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Benjamin Franklin earlier, David. Most of the Enlightenment, of course, seems to be centered in France and Scotland, Germany, England. But America, many Europeans went to America then as a, what some people would call a settler colonial society, or certainly an offshoot of the European world. Was the settling of America and the American Revolution Was it the quintessential Enlightenment project?David Bell: Another very good question, and again, it depends a bit on who you talk to. I just mentioned this book by Peter Gay, and the last part of his book is called The Science of Freedom, and it's all about the American Revolution. So certainly a lot of interpreters of the Enlightenment have said that, yes, the American revolution represents in a sense the best possible outcome of the American Revolution, it was the best, possible outcome of the enlightened. Certainly there you look at the founding fathers of the United States and there's a great deal that they took from me like Certainly, they took a great great number of political ideas from Obviously Madison was very much inspired and drafting the edifice of the Constitution by Montesquieu to see himself Was happy to admit in addition most of the founding Fathers of the united states were you know had kind of you know We still had we were still definitely Christians, but we're also but we were also very much influenced by deism were very much against the idea of making the United States a kind of confessional country where Christianity was dominant. They wanted to believe in the enlightenment principles of free speech, religious toleration and so on and so forth. So in all those senses and very much the gun was probably more inspired than Franklin was somebody who was very conversant with the European Enlightenment. He spent a large part of his life in London. Where he was in contact with figures of the Enlightenment. He also, during the American Revolution, of course, he was mostly in France, where he is vetted by some of the surviving fellows and were very much in contact for them as well. So yes, I would say the American revolution is certainly... And then the American revolutionary scene, of course by the Europeans, very much as a kind of offshoot of the enlightenment. So one of the great books of the late Enlightenment is by Condor Say, which he wrote while he was hiding actually in the future evolution of the chariot. It's called a historical sketch of the progress of the human spirit, or the human mind, and you know he writes about the American Revolution as being, basically owing its existence to being like...Andrew Keen: Franklin is of course an example of your pre-academic enlightenment, a generalist, inventor, scientist, entrepreneur, political thinker. What about the role of science and indeed economics in the Enlightenment? David, we're going to talk of course about the Marxist interpretation, perhaps the Marxist interpretation which sees The Enlightenment is just a euphemism, perhaps, for exploitative capitalism. How central was the growth and development of the market, of economics, and innovation, and capitalism in your reading of The Enlightened?David Bell: Well, in my reading, it was very important, but not in the way that the Marxists used to say. So Friedrich Engels once said that the Enlightenment was basically the idealized kingdom of the bourgeoisie, and there was whole strain of Marxist thinking that followed the assumption that, and then Karl Marx himself argued that the documents like the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, which obviously were inspired by the Enlightment, were simply kind of the near, or kind of. Way that the bourgeoisie was able to advance itself ideologically, and I don't think that holds much water, which is very little indication that any particular economic class motivated the Enlightenment or was using the Enlightment in any way. That said, I think it's very difficult to imagine the Enlightement without the social and economic changes that come in with the 18th century. To begin with globalization. If you read the great works of the Enlightenment, it's remarkable just how open they are to talking about humanity in general. So one of Voltaire's largest works, one of his most important works, is something called Essay on Customs and the Spirit of Nations, which is actually History of the World, where he talks learnedly not simply about Europe, but about the Americas, about China, about Africa, about India. Montesquieu writes Persian letters. Christian Volpe writes about Chinese philosophy. You know, Rousseau writes about... You know, the earliest days of humankind talks about Africa. All the great figures of the Enlightenment are writing about the rest of the world, and this is a period in which contacts between Europe and the rest the world are exploding along with international trade. So by the end of the 18th century, there are 4,000 to 5,000 ships a year crossing the Atlantic. It's an enormous number. And that's one context in which the enlightenment takes place. Another is what we call the consumer revolution. So in the 18th century, certainly in the major cities of Western Europe, people of a wide range of social classes, including even artisans, sort of somewhat wealthy artisians, shopkeepers, are suddenly able to buy a much larger range of products than they were before. They're able to choose how to basically furnish their own lives, if you will, how they're gonna dress, what they're going to eat, what they gonna put on the walls of their apartments and so on and so forth. And so they become accustomed to exercising a great deal more personal choice than their ancestors have done. And the Enlightenment really develops in tandem with this. Most of the great works of the Enlightment, they're not really written to, they're treatises, they're like Kant, they're written to persuade you to think in a single way. Really written to make you ask questions yourself, to force you to ponder things. They're written in the form of puzzles and riddles. Voltaire had a great line there, he wrote that the best kind of books are the books that readers write half of themselves as they read, and that's sort of the quintessence of the Enlightenment as far as I'm concerned.Andrew Keen: Yeah, Voltaire might have been comfortable on YouTube or Facebook. David, you mentioned all those ships going from Europe across the Atlantic. Of course, many of those ships were filled with African slaves. You mentioned this in your piece. I mean, this is no secret, of course. You also mentioned a couple of times Montesquieu's Persian letters. To what extent is... The enlightenment then perhaps the birth of Western power, of Western colonialism, of going to Africa, seizing people, selling them in North America, the French, the English, Dutch colonization of the rest of the world. Of course, later more sophisticated Marxist thinkers from the Frankfurt School, you mentioned these in your essay, Odorno and Horkheimer in particular, See the Enlightenment as... A project, if you like, of Western domination. I remember reading many years ago when I was in graduate school, Edward Said, his analysis of books like The Persian Letters, which is a form of cultural Western power. How much of this is simply bound up in the profound, perhaps, injustice of the Western achievement? And of course, some of the justice as well. We haven't talked about Jefferson, but perhaps in Jefferson's life and his thinking and his enlightened principles and his... Life as a slave owner, these contradictions are most self-evident.David Bell: Well, there are certainly contradictions, and there's certainly... I think what's remarkable, if you think about it, is that if you read through works of the Enlightenment, you would be hard-pressed to find a justification for slavery. You do find a lot of critiques of slavery, and I think that's something very important to keep in mind. Obviously, the chattel slavery of Africans in the Americas began well before the Enlightment, it began in 1500. The Enlightenment doesn't have the credit for being the first movement to oppose slavery. That really goes back to various religious groups, especially the Fakers. But that said, you have in France, you had in Britain, in America even, you'd have a lot of figures associated with the Enlightenment who were pretty sure of becoming very forceful opponents of slavery very early. Now, when it comes to imperialism, that's a tricky issue. What I think you'd find in these light bulbs, you'd different sorts of tendencies and different sorts of writings. So there are certainly a lot of writers of the Enlightenment who are deeply opposed to European authorities. One of the most popular works of the late Enlightenment was a collective work edited by the man named the Abbe Rinal, which is called The History of the Two Indies. And that is a book which is deeply, deeply critical of European imperialism. At the same time, at the same of the enlightenment, a lot the works of history written during the Enlightment. Tended, such as Voltaire's essay on customs, which I just mentioned, tend to give a kind of very linear version of history. They suggest that all societies follow the same path, from sort of primitive savagery, hunter-gatherers, through early agriculture, feudal stages, and on into sort of modern commercial society and civilization. And so they're basically saying, okay, we, the Europeans, are the most advanced. People like the Africans and the Native Americans are the least advanced, and so perhaps we're justified in going and quote, bringing our civilization to them, what later generations would call the civilizing missions, or possibly just, you know, going over and exploiting them because we are stronger and we are more, and again, we are the best. And then there's another thing that the Enlightenment did. The Enlightenment tended to destroy an older Christian view of humankind, which in some ways militated against modern racism. Christians believed, of course, that everyone was the same from Adam and Eve, which meant that there was an essential similarity in the world. And the Enlightenment challenged this by challenging the biblical kind of creation. The Enlightenment challenges this. Voltaire, for instance, believed that there had actually been several different human species that had different origins, and that can very easily become a justification for racism. Buffon, one of the most Figures of the French Enlightenment, one of the early naturalists, was crucial for trying to show that in fact nature is not static, that nature is always changing, that species are changing, including human beings. And so again, that allowed people to think in terms of human beings at different stages of evolution, and perhaps this would be a justification for privileging the more advanced humans over the less advanced. In the 18th century itself, most of these things remain potential, rather than really being acted upon. But in the 19th century, figures of writers who would draw upon these things certainly went much further, and these became justifications for slavery, imperialism, and other things. So again, the Enlightenment is the source of a great deal of stuff here, and you can't simply put it into one box or more.Andrew Keen: You mentioned earlier, David, that Concorda wrote one of the later classics of the... Condorcet? Sorry, Condorcets, excuse my French. Condorcès wrote one the later Classics of the Enlightenment when he was hiding from the French Revolution. In your mind, was the revolution itself the natural conclusion, climax? Perhaps anti-climax of the Enlightenment. Certainly, it seems as if a lot of the critiques of the French Revolution, particularly the more conservative ones, Burke comes to mind, suggested that perhaps the principles of in the Enlightment inevitably led to the guillotine, or is that an unfair way of thinking of it?David Bell: Well, there are a lot of people who have thought like that. Edmund Burke already, writing in 1790, in his reflections on the revolution in France, he said that everything which was great in the old regime is being dissolved and, quoting, dissolved by this new conquering empire of light and reason. And then he said about the French that in the groves of their academy at the end of every vista, you see nothing but the gallows. Nothing but the Gallows. So there, in 1780, he already seemed to be predicting the reign of terror and blaming it. A certain extent from the Enlightenment. That said, I think, you know, again, the French Revolution is incredibly complicated event. I mean, you certainly have, you know, an explosion of what we could call Enlightenment thinking all over the place. In France, it happened in France. What happened there was that you had a, you know, the collapse of an extraordinarily inefficient government and a very, you know, in a very antiquated, paralyzed system of government kind of collapsed, created a kind of political vacuum. Into that vacuum stepped a lot of figures who were definitely readers of the Enlightenment. Oh so um but again the Enlightment had I said I don't think you can call the Enlightement a single thing so to say that the Enlightiment inspired the French Revolution rather than the There you go.Andrew Keen: Although your essay on liberties is the Enlightenment then and now you probably didn't write is always these lazy editors who come up with inaccurate and inaccurate titles. So for you, there is no such thing as the Enlighten.David Bell: No, there is. There is. But still, it's a complex thing. It contains multitudes.Andrew Keen: So it's the Enlightenment rather than the United States.David Bell: Conflicting tendencies, it has contradictions within it. There's enough unity to refer to it as a singular noun, but it doesn't mean that it all went in one single direction.Andrew Keen: But in historical terms, did the failure of the French Revolution, its descent into Robespierre and then Bonaparte, did it mark the end in historical terms a kind of bookend of history? You began in 1720 by 1820. Was the age of the Enlightenment pretty much over?David Bell: I would say yes. I think that, again, one of the things about the French Revolution is that people who are reading these books and they're reading these ideas and they are discussing things really start to act on them in a very different way from what it did before the French revolution. You have a lot of absolute monarchs who are trying to bring certain enlightenment principles to bear in their form of government, but they're not. But it's difficult to talk about a full-fledged attempt to enact a kind of enlightenment program. Certainly a lot of the people in the French Revolution saw themselves as doing that. But as they did it, they ran into reality, I would say. I mean, now Tocqueville, when he writes his old regime in the revolution, talks about how the French philosophes were full of these abstract ideas that were divorced from reality. And while that's an exaggeration, there was a certain truth to them. And as soon as you start having the age of revolutions, as soon you start people having to devise systems of government that will actually last, and as you have people, democratic representative systems that will last, and as they start revising these systems under the pressure of actual events, then you're not simply talking about an intellectual movement anymore, you're talking about something very different. And so I would say that, well, obviously the ideas of the Enlightenment continue to inspire people, the books continue to be read, debated. They lead on to figures like Kant, and as we talked about earlier, Kant leads to Hegel, Hegel leads to Marx in a certain sense. Nonetheless, by the time you're getting into the 19th century, what you have, you know, has connections to the Enlightenment, but can we really still call it the Enlightment? I would sayAndrew Keen: And Tocqueville, of course, found democracy in America. Is democracy itself? I know it's a big question. But is it? Bound up in the Enlightenment. You've written extensively, David, both for liberties and elsewhere on liberalism. Is the promise of democracy, democratic systems, the one born in the American Revolution, promised in the French Revolution, not realized? Are they products of the Enlightment, or is the 19th century and the democratic systems that in the 19th century, is that just a separate historical track?David Bell: Again, I would say there are certain things in the Enlightenment that do lead in that direction. Certainly, I think most figures in the enlightenment in one general sense or another accepted the idea of a kind of general notion of popular sovereignty. It didn't mean that they always felt that this was going to be something that could necessarily be acted upon or implemented in their own day. And they didn't necessarily associate generalized popular sovereignty with what we would now call democracy with people being able to actually govern themselves. Would be certain figures, certainly Diderot and some of his essays, what we saw very much in the social contract, you know, were sketching out, you knows, models for possible democratic system. Condorcet, who actually lived into the French Revolution, wrote one of the most draft constitutions for France, that's one of most democratic documents ever proposed. But of course there were lots of figures in the Enlightenment, Voltaire, and others who actually believed much more in absolute monarchy, who believed that you just, you know, you should have. Freedom of speech and freedom of discussion, out of which the best ideas would emerge, but then you had to give those ideas to the prince who imposed them by poor sicknesses.Andrew Keen: And of course, Rousseau himself, his social contract, some historians have seen that as the foundations of totalitarian, modern totalitarianism. Finally, David, your wonderful essay in Liberties in the spring quarterly 2025 is The Enlightenment, Then and Now. What about now? You work at Princeton, your president has very bravely stood up to the new presidential regime in the United States, in defense of academic intellectual freedom. Does the word and the movement, does it have any relevance in the 2020s, particularly in an age of neo-authoritarianism around the world?David Bell: I think it does. I think we have to be careful about it. I always get a little nervous when people say, well, we should simply go back to the Enlightenment, because the Enlightenments is history. We don't go back the 18th century. I think what we need to do is to recover certain principles, certain ideals from the 18 century, the ones that matter to us, the ones we think are right, and make our own Enlightenment better. I don't think we need be governed by the 18 century. Thomas Paine once said that no generation should necessarily rule over every generation to come, and I think that's probably right. Unfortunately in the United States, we have a constitution which is now essentially unamendable, so we're doomed to live by a constitution largely from the 18th century. But are there many things in the Enlightenment that we should look back to, absolutely?Andrew Keen: Well, David, I am going to free you for your own French Enlightenment. You can go and have some croissant now in your local cafe in Paris. Thank you so much for a very, I excuse the pun, enlightening conversation on the Enlightenment then and now, Essential Essay in Liberties. I'd love to get you back on the show. Talk more history. Thank you. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

During the church-led civil rights movement of the 1950s and '60s, many strove for a society that was colour blind. Purging prejudice meant looking beyond race to a common humanity.But for African-American writer TYLER AUSTIN HARPER, today's anti-racism movement erects barriers, demands discomfort, denies the possibility of friendship, even love across racial lines.In a major essay for The Atlantic, he calls for a "good colour-blindness".PlusThrowing yourself at the mercy of a higher power, seeking forgiveness, committing to strict behaviour, even thought. Once upon a time, you'd think of religion.But today, it's the social justice movement that demands very public repentance.IAN BURUMA is a leading intellectual in America and Europe. A former editor of The New York Review of Books, he's now a professor at Bard College in New York. His essay for Harper's magazine is called "Doing the Work".

Pie Down Here — Produced by Signal HillIn the 1980s, when Robin D.G. Kelley was 24 years old, he took a bus trip to the Deep South. He was researching and recording oral histories with farmworkers and Communist Party members who had organized a sharecroppers union in Alabama during the Great Depression.Kelly used those oral histories to write his award winning book, Hammer and Hoe: Alabama Communists during the Great Depression.Recently Kelley listened back to those early recordings with Signal Hill contributor Conor Gillies. He hadn't heard some of the recordings in decades. Memories came flooding back as Kelley reflected on the people, the story and the power of oral history. Robin Davis Gibran Kelley is an American historian and academic, and the Gary B. Nash Professor of American History at UCLA. His books include the prize-winning Thelonious Monk: The Life and Times of an American Original (Free Press, 2009); Freedom Dreams: The Black Radical Imagination (Beacon Press, 2002, new ed. 2022. His essays have appeared in dozens of publications, including The Nation, the New York Times, the New Yorker, New York Review of Books and more.Pie Down Here was produced by Conor Gillies and edited by Liza Yeager and Omar Etman, with help from the Signal Hill team: Jackson Roach, Annie Rosenthal, and Lio Wong. Music by Nathan Bowles. You can listen to the entire first issue of Signal Hill — eight original stories — on their website at signalhill.fm, or wherever you get podcasts. The Kitchen Sisters Present is produced by The Kitchen Sisters (Nikki Silva & Davia Nelson) with Nathan Dalton and Brandi Howell. The Kitchen Sisters Present is part of Radiotopia from PRX, a curated network of independent producers.

Who are the most symbolic mid 20th century American Jews? In Eminent Jews, New Yorker staff writer David Denby tells the remarkable stories of Leonard Bernstein, Mel Brooks, Betty Friedan, and Norman Mailer. He explains how each embodied a new Jewish confidence after WWII, contrasting with earlier generations' restraint. Each figure pushed boundaries in their own way - Bernstein through his musical versatility, Brooks through his boundary-pushing humor about Jewish experiences, Friedan through her feminist theories, and Mailer through his provocative writing style. Five key takeaways * Post-WWII Jewish Americans displayed a newfound confidence and willingness to stand out publicly, unlike previous generations who were more cautious about drawing attention to their Jewishness.* The four figures in Denby's book (Bernstein, Brooks, Friedan, and Mailer) each embraced their Jewish identity differently, while becoming prominent in American culture in their respective fields.* Mel Brooks used humor, particularly about Jewish experiences and historical trauma, as both a defense mechanism and a way to assert Jewish presence and resilience.* Each figure pushed against the restraint of previous Jewish generations - Bernstein through his expressive conducting and openness about his complex sexuality, Friedan through her feminist activism, and Mailer through his aggressive literary style.* Rejecting the notion that a Jewish "golden age" has ended, Denby believes that despite current challenges including campus anti-Semitism, American Jews continue to thrive and excel disproportionately to their population size.David Denby is a staff writer at The New Yorker. He served as a film critic for the magazine from 1998 to 2014. His first article for The New Yorker, “Does Homer Have Legs?,” published in 1993, grew into a book, “Great Books: My Adventures with Homer, Rousseau, Woolf, and Other Indestructible Writers of the Western World,” about reading the literary canon at Columbia University. His other subjects for the magazine have included the Scottish Enlightenment, the writers Susan Sontag and James Agee, and the movie directors Clint Eastwood and the Coen brothers. In 1991, he received a National Magazine Award for three of his articles on high-end audio. Before joining The New Yorker, he was the film critic at New York magazine for twenty years; his writing has also appeared in The Atlantic, The New York Review of Books, and The New Republic. He is the editor of “Awake in the Dark: An Anthology of Film Criticism, 1915 to the Present” and the author of “American Sucker”; “Snark”; “Do the Movies Have a Future?,” a collection that includes his film criticism from the magazine; and “Lit Up,” a study of high-school English teaching. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Franz Wright was born in Vienna, Austria and grew up in the Northwest, the Midwest, and California. He earned a BA from Oberlin College in 1977. His collections of poetry include The Beforelife (2001); God's Silence (2006); Walking to Martha's Vineyard, which won the Pulitzer Prize in 2004; Wheeling Motel (2009); Kindertotenwald (2011); and F (2013). In his precisely crafted, lyrical poems, Wright addresses the subjects of isolation, illness, spirituality, and gratitude. Of his work, he has commented, “I think ideally, I would like, in a poem, to operate by way of suggestion.”Critic Helen Vendler wrote in the New York Review of Books, “Wright's scale of experience, like Berryman's, runs from the homicidal to the ecstatic ... His best forms of or originality: deftness in patterning, startling metaphors, starkness of speech, compression of both pain and joy, and a stoic self-possession with the agonies and penalties of existence.” Langdon Hammer, in the New York Times Book Review, wrote of God's Silence: “In his best poems, Wright grasps at the ‘radiantly obvious thing' in short-lined short lyrics that turn and twist down the page. The urgency and calculated unsteadiness of the utterances, with their abrupt shifts of direction, jump-cuts and quips, mime the wounded openness of a speaker struggling to find faith.”Wright received a Whiting Fellowship, a Guggenheim Fellowship, and a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts. He translated poetry by Rainer Maria Rilke and Rene Char; in 2008 he and his wife, Elizabeth Oehlkers Wright, co-translated a collection by the Belarusian poet Valzhyna Mort, Factory of Tears. He taught at Emerson College and other universities, worked in mental health clinics, and volunteered at a center for grieving children. His father was the Pulitzer Prize–winning poet James Wright. He died in 2015. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit dailypoempod.substack.com/subscribe

The Author Events Series presents Katie Kitamura | Audition: A Novel REGISTER In Conversation with Adam Dalva One woman, the performance of a lifetime. Or two. An exhilarating, destabilizing Möbius strip of a novel that asks whether we ever really know the people we love. Two people meet for lunch in a Manhattan restaurant. She's an accomplished actress in rehearsals for an upcoming premiere. He's attractive, troubling, young-young enough to be her son. Who is he to her, and who is she to him? In this compulsively readable, brilliantly constructed novel, two competing narratives unspool, rewriting our understanding of the roles we play every day – partner, parent, creator, muse – and the truths every performance masks, especially from those who think they know us most intimately.  Taut and hypnotic, Audition is Katie Kitamura at her virtuosic best. Katie Kitamura is the author of four previous novels, most recently A Separation and Intimacies, which was longlisted for the National Book Award and the PEN/Faulkner Award and was a finalist for a Joyce Carol Oates Prize. She is a recipient of the Rome Prize in Literature, a Lannan fellowship, and many other honors, and her work has been translated into twenty-one languages. She teaches in the creative writing program at New York University. Adam Dalva's writing has appeared in The New Yorker, The Paris Review, and The New York Review of Books. He serves on the board of the National Book Critics Circle and is a Contributing Fiction Editor of The Yale Review. The 2024/25 Author Events Series is presented by Comcast. Because you love Author Events, please make a donation when you register for this event to ensure that this series continues to inspire Philadelphians. Books will be available for purchase at the library on event night! All tickets are non-refundable. (recorded 4/9/2025)

Zakiya Dalila Harris received her MFA in creative writing from The New School. Her debut novel, The Other Black Girl, was an instant New York Times bestseller and is now a critically acclaimed Hulu Original Series. Her essays and book reviews have appeared in Cosmopolitan, The Guardian, The New York Times, The Rumpus, and elsewhere. She lives in Brooklyn with her husband. _________________________________ The Critic and Her Publics Hosted by Merve Emre • Edited by Michele Moses • Music by Dani Lencioni • Art by Leanne Shapton • Sponsored by Alfred A. Knopf The Critic and Her Publics is a co-production between the Shapiro Center for Creative Writing and Criticism at Wesleyan University, New York Review of Books, and Lit Hub.

Journalist and historian Joy Neumeyer joins Suzi from Warsaw to discuss her March 13 piece in the New York Review of Books, “Russia: Letters from the Opposition.” Last summer, Neumeyer wrote to 14 of Vladimir Putin's political prisoners — dissidents locked away in penal colonies for opposing Russia's war on Ukraine. While human rights organizations estimate that some 20,000 anti-war critics have been detained, a smaller number face trial and sentencing, disappearing into Russia's vast prison system. Neumeyer was struck by the deeply personal, often unexpected responses she received — offering a rare glimpse into the lives, fears, and resilience of those behind bars. While figures like Boris Kagarlitsky, Russia's most well-known left-wing critic, have drawn international attention — including on this podcast — many political prisoners remain unknown, their suffering largely overlooked both inside and outside Russia. Neumeyer shares the powerful insights from her correspondence, revealing not just the punishments these prisoners endure, but also their defiance, hope, and unwavering resistance. We explore Putin's escalating repression, the deeply human stories of imprisoned dissidents, and the culture of war and propaganda that fuels the political climate in Russia. And we ask a critical question: what happens to these prisoners if — and when — the war ends? Jacobin Radio with Suzi Weissman features conversations with leading thinkers and activists, with a focus on labor, the economy, and protest movements.

We brag about having poet, critic, and translator extraordinaire Michael Hofmann on the show, and then we talk to him about his latest work in translation, The Frog in the Throat by Markus Werner, out now from New York Review of Books Classics.Thank you for listening! If you like what you hear, give us a follow at: X: Across the Pond, Galley Beggar Press, Interabang Books, Lori Feathers, Sam JordisonInstagram: Across the Pond, Galley Beggar Press, Interabang Books, Lori Feathers, Sam JordisonFacebook: Across the Pond, Galley Beggar Press, Interabang BooksBluesky: @acrossthepondbooks.bsky.socialThe Big Book Project https://substack.com/@thebigbookprojectTheme music by Carlos Guajardo-Molina

Send us a textWhat's the meaning of life? Why is there pain and suffering? How do you balance justice and love? These "accursed questions" have haunted humanity for centuries. Fyodor Dostoevsky sought to answer these questions through his characters' lives. His answers are prophetic for our time.In this episode, I sit down with Northwestern University professor of Russian literature Gary Saul Morson. We discuss what Dostoevsky reveals about developing intellectual honesty, how to deal with suffering and brokenness, as well as his arguments for and against God. His latest book, Wonder Confronts Certainty: Russian Writers on the Timeless Questions and Why Their Answers Matter, sets the stage for this interview sets the stage for this interview.Topics:The "Accursed Questions" of Russian LiteratureDostoevsky's Intellectual Honesty with FaithBattle-Testing Worldviews through FictionThe Dangers of Abstracting IndividualsNotes from Underground: Human Freedom vs DeterminismThe Core of Ethics: Human Surprisingness"What books have had an impact on you?""What advice do you have for teenagers?Bio:Gary Saul Morson is Lawrence B. Dumas Professor of the Arts and Humanities and Professor of Russian Literature at Northwestern University.   His 21 authored or edited volumes and 300 shorter publications have examined major Russian writers, the philosophy of time, the role of quotations in culture, great aphorisms, and the ultimate questions about life taken seriously in Russian literature. His classes on Russian writers in translation have enrolled over 500 students, and he is the recipient of numerous teaching and research awards. Morson writes regularly for numerous national publications, including The New York Review of Books, The Wall Street Journal, Commentary, First Things, Mosaic, and several others.  He was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1995Prof. Morson on the best Dostoevsky translations:“The best translations of Dostoevsky are by Constance Garnett or revisions of Garnett.  For Notes from Underground, use Garnett revised by Ralph Matlaw;  for The Brothers Karamazov, Garnett revised by Susan McReynolds;  and for The Possessed (Demons)be sure to use the Modern Library version of the Garnett translation with appendixes containing versions of a chapter he was not allowed to publish.”Socials -Lessons from Interesting People substack: https://taylorbledsoe.substack.com/Website: https://www.aimingforthemoon.com/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/aiming4moon/Twitter: https://twitter.com/Aiming4Moon

Last week, Columbia capitulated to Trump's extensive demands on the university, in hopes of recovering $400 million in government funding that was revoked by the Trump administration. Almost a week later, there is still no indication that Columbia will get the money back. The university has agreed to a long list of changes, among them the creation of a new 36-officer campus police force with the power to arrest students; the adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which conflates anti-Zionism and antisemitism; broad commitments to disciplinary action for student protesters; and even the advancement of Columbia's Tel Aviv Center. Strikingly, the university has placed the Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies department into what the Trump administration is referring to as “receivership,” appointing a new senior vice provost to exert control over the teaching of Israel/Palestine in particular, starting with the Center for Palestine Studies. Meanwhile, the university committed to “the expansion of intellectual diversity among faculty,” indicating that they are going to hire more Zionists to teach in the Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies and in the School for International and Public Affairs. All of this follows the targeting and abduction of Columbia students, including Palestinian green card holder and student activist Mahmoud Khalil, who remains in ICE detention, and Ranjani Srinivasan, an Indian student who was not significantly involved in protests and who fled to Canada to avoid detention after her visa was revoked. It's hard to overstate the significance of Columbia's surrender, at a moment when the US appears to be in democratic freefall, and when academic freedom and the fundamental right to free speech hangs in the balance. Editor-at-large Peter Beinart and Columbia professor Nadia Abu El-Haj, who also serves as the co-director of the Center for Palestine Studies, spoke just hours before this shocking development, but their conversation probes what's been happening at Columbia and Barnard, and what's at stake—both for the study of Israel/Palestine and for the future of higher ed. This conversation first appeared in the Beinart Notebook on Substack.Thanks to Jesse Brenneman for producing and to Nathan Salsburg for the use of his song “VIII (All That Were Calculated Have Passed).” ARTICLES MENTIONED AND FURTHER READING: “‘Mahmoud Is Not Safe,'” Nadia Abu El-Haj, New York Review of Books“The Columbia Network Pushing Behind the Scenes to Deport and Arrest Student Protesters,” Natasha Lennard and Akela Lacy, The InterceptLetter from Mahmoud Khalil from ICE detention in Louisiana“The Perils of Universities' Unscholarly Antisemitism Reports,” Peter Beinart, Jewish Currents“

For our fifth episode of "History and our Current World," Daniel Immerwahr joins Kelly to uncover how U.S. foreign policy has been shaped by a hidden history of territorial expansion. They dive into the myths surrounding the U.S. "logo map" and overlooked overseas territories, and discuss how a selective understanding of this history impacts our foreign policy decisions today. Daniel is the Bergen Evans Professor in the Humanities and Charles Deering McCormick Professor of Teaching Excellence in the History department at Northwestern University. He is the author of Thinking Small: The United States and the Lure of Community Development, and How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States, both of which have won scholarly awards. Immerwahr is a contributing writer for The New Yorker and his essays have also appeared in the New York Times, The Guardian, The Atlantic, the Washington Post, Harper's, The New Republic, and the New York Review of Books, among other places. Link to How to Hide an Empire: https://www.amazon.com/How-Hide-Empire-History-Greater/dp/0374172145  The opinions expressed in this conversation are strictly those of the participants and do not represent the views of Georgetown University or any government entity. Produced by Theo Malhotra and Freddie Mallinson.  Recorded on March 10, 2025. Diplomatic Immunity, a podcast from the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University, brings you frank and candid conversations with experts on the issues facing diplomats and national security decision-makers around the world. Funding support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. For more, visit our website, and follow us on Linkedin, Twitter @GUDiplomacy, and Instagram @isd.georgetown

Keith Whittington is joined by David Cole, the Honorable George J. Mitchell Professor in Law and Public Policy at Georgetown University Law Center. He is also the former National Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union. This episode focuses on the recent “Statement from Constitutional Law Scholars on Columbia,” of which Professor Cole was a lead author. That statement was published on the website of the New York Review of Books, and was signed by an ideologically diverse group of 18 scholars ranging from Steven Calabresi and Eugene Volokh to Erwin Chemerinsky and Pam Karlan. Keith Whittington also signed the statement. 

On this episode, we welcome back to the program, journalist and author, Joshua Hammer who was our guest back on episode 112 in September 2016.  Joshua's career has included serving as Newsweek Bureau Chief in, Nairobi, Buenos Aires, LA, Berlin, Jerusalem and Cape Town.  His work has appeared in the New York Review of Books, The New Yorker, National Geographic and the Smithsonian just to name a few publications. He is a New York Times bestselling author of six books, including The Falcon Thief and The Bad-Ass Librarians of Timbuktu (which we talked about in our last conversation). Joshua's just released and latest book is: The Mesopotamian Riddle: An Archaeologist, a Soldier, a Clergyman, and the Race to Decipher the World's Oldest Writing, published by Simon & Schuster. In the course of the conversation we dive deep into this fascinating book – everything from the Royal Asiatic Society's 1857 Great Cuneiform Challenge and the gentlemen who took part in it, to the difficulty of the digs in the Near East, to the “Assyrian Fever” (as Joshua calls it) that swept London in 1851- 1852, to the origins of the British Museum, to the topic of cultural appropriation of a country or people's national patrimony, and more. In keeping with the theme of the show, should he take a one way ticket back in time, Joshua shared what he would tell scholars and archeologists in the mid 19th century about how their work resonates today.   As for Joshua's own one way ticket destination, it's still to Manhattan in 1967. Do check out Joshua's other books: Chosen by God: A Brother's Journey; A Season in Bethlehem: Unholy War in a Sacred Place; and Yokohama Burning: The Deadly 1923 Earthquake and Fire that Helped Forge the Path to World War II. 

Fergus McIntosh is the head research editor at The New Yorker and runs the magazine's fact-checking department. _________________________________ The Critic and Her Publics Hosted by Merve Emre • Edited by Michele Moses • Music by Dani Lencioni • Art by Leanne Shapton • Sponsored by Alfred A. Knopf The Critic and Her Publics is a co-production between the Shapiro Center for Creative Writing and Criticism at Wesleyan University, New York Review of Books, and Lit Hub.

On Thursday, we featured a conversation with Red Scare author Clay Risen about Joe McCarthy, Donald Trump and the Paranoid Style of American History. Today our subject is one of the best known victims of McCarthyism - the German writer Thomas Mann. In His Liberties essay “Mannhood: The Coming Revival of Democracy,” Morten Hoi Jensen writes about how Mann, as an exile from Nazi Germany, toured the United States in the spring of 1938 lecturing in support of New Deal democracy. Thomas Mann's brave defense of American democracy might now appear as a model for dissenting intellectuals in Trump's America. Especially since Mann himself became a victim of the anti communist witch hunt after the War. Here are the five KEEN ON takeways in our conversation with Morten Hoi Jensen about Thomas Mann:* Thomas Mann was initially a conservative artist who became an advocate for democracy as he witnessed the rise of fascism in Germany. His political views evolved significantly from his earlier "apolitical" stance to becoming an outspoken critic of Nazism.* Mann's 1938 book and lecture tour "The Coming Victory of Democracy" warned Americans that democracy was vulnerable even in the United States. He saw parallels between pre-Nazi Germany and aspects of American society, which later contributed to his decision to leave the US during the McCarthy era.* Mann became a victim of McCarthyism in the 1950s. He was labeled as a "premature anti-fascist" by American reactionaries despite his prominence as a Nobel Prize-winning author who had been welcomed to America and had even visited the White House during the Roosevelt administration.* Throughout his life and work, Mann engaged in intense self-criticism and introspection about Germany's descent into fascism. Unlike many other political commentators, he looked inward and questioned his own early nationalistic writings, wondering if he had inadvertently contributed to Nazi ideology.* Mann's approach to politics was always that of an artist rather than a political analyst. His views were complex and often contradictory, yet his willingness to engage with difficult political questions through both his fiction (particularly in "Doctor Faustus") and his public speaking made him an important moral voice during a tumultuous period in history.Morten Hoi Jensen is the author of A Difficult Death: The Life and Work of Jens Peter Jacobsen, which was published by Yale University Press in 2017 with a foreword by James Wood. His writing has appeared in The Washington Post, The New York Review of Books, Liberties: A Journal of Culture and Politics, The Literary Review, The Los Angeles Review of Books, The Point, The New Republic, The Wall Street Journal, and Commonweal, among other publications. He is represented by Max Moorhead at Massie & McQuilkin.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Stand Up is a daily podcast that I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more GET TICKETS TO PODJAM II In Vegas March 27-30 Confirmed Guests! Professor Eric Segall, Dr Aaron Carroll, Maura Quint, Tim Wise, JL Cauvin, Ophira Eisenberg, Christian Finnegan and The Ladies of The Huw will all join us! Waj Joins me at 28 mins. Check out his new show on youtube ‘America Unhinged,' with Francesca Fiorentini and Wajahat Ali - Zeteo's new weekly show following Trump's first 100 days in office. Wajahat Ali is a Daily Beast columnist, public speaker, recovering attorney, and tired dad of three cute kids. Get his book Go Back To Where You Came From: And, Other Helpful Recommendations on Becoming American which will be published in January 2022 by Norton. He believes in sharing stories that are by us, for everyone: universal narratives told through a culturally specific lens to entertain, educate and bridge the global divides. Listen to WAj and DAnielle Moodie on Democracy-ish  He frequently appears on television and podcasts for his brilliant, incisive, and witty political commentary. Born in the Bay Area, California to Pakistani immigrant parents, Ali went to school wearing Husky pants and knowing only three words of English. He graduated from UC Berkeley with an English major and became a licensed attorney. He knows what it feels like to be the token minority in the classroom and the darkest person in a boardroom. Like Spiderman, he's often had the power and responsibility of being the cultural ambassador of an entire group of people, those who are often marginalized, silenced, or reduced to stereotypes. His essays, interviews, and reporting have appeared in The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Washington Post, The Guardian, and New York Review of Books. Ali has spoken at many organizations, from Google to Walmart-Jet to Princeton University to the United Nations to the Chandni Indian-Pakistani Restaurant in Newark, California, and his living room in front of his three kids. Join us Monday's and Thursday's at 8EST for our Bi-Weekly Happy Hour Hangout!  Pete on Blue Sky Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube  Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art  Hire DJ Monzyk to build your website or help you with Marketing

Sarah Chihaya is the author of the memoir Bibliophobia, available from Random House. It is the official March 2025 pick of the Otherppl Book Club. Chihaya is a book critic, essayist, and editor. Her work has appeared in The New Yorker, The New York Review of Books, The Nation, New York magazine, The Atlantic, andThe Yale Review, among other places, and she is the co-author of The Ferrante Letters: An Experiment in Collective Criticism. She has taught at Princeton University, New York University, and UC Berkeley. She is currently a contributing editor at Los Angeles Review of Books and lives in Brooklyn. *** Otherppl with Brad Listi is a weekly podcast featuring in-depth interviews with today's leading writers. Available where podcasts are available: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, etc. Subscribe to Brad Listi's email newsletter. Support the show on Patreon Merch Twitter Instagram  TikTok Bluesky Email the show: letters [at] otherppl [dot] com The podcast is a proud affiliate partner of Bookshop, working to support local, independent bookstores. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

By Walt HickeyDouble feature today!Welcome to the Numlock Sunday edition.This week, I spoke to Alissa Wilkinson who is out with the brand new book, We Tell Ourselves Stories: Joan Didion and the American Dream Machine.I'm a huge fan of Alissa, she's a phenomenal critic and I thought this topic — what happens when one of the most important American literary figures heads out to Hollywood to work on the most important American medium — is super fascinating. It's a really wonderful book and if you're a longtime Joan Didion fan or simply a future Joan Didion fan, it's a look at a really transformative era of Hollywood and should be a fun read regardless.Alissa can be found at the New York Times, and the book is available wherever books are sold.This interview has been condensed and edited. All right, Alissa, thank you so much for coming on.Yeah, thanks for having me. It's good to be back, wherever we are.Yes, you are the author of We Tell Ourselves Stories: Joan Didion and the American Dream Machine. It's a really exciting book. It's a really exciting approach, for a Joan Didion biography and placing her in the current of American mainstream culture for a few years. I guess just backing out, what got you interested in Joan Didion to begin with? When did you first get into her work?Joan Didion and I did not become acquainted, metaphorically, until after I got out of college. I studied Tech and IT in college, and thus didn't read any books, because they don't make you read books in school, or they didn't when I was there. I moved to New York right afterward. I was riding the subway. There were all these ads for this book called The Year of Magical Thinking. It was the year 2005, the book had just come out. The Year of Magical Thinking is Didion's National Book Award-winning memoir about the year after her husband died, suddenly of a heart attack in '03. It's sort of a meditation on grief, but it's not really what that sounds like. If people haven't read it's very Didion. You know, it's not sentimental, it's constantly examining the narratives that she's telling herself about grief.So I just saw these ads on the walls. I was like, what is this book that everybody seems to be reading? I just bought it and read it. And it just so happened that it was right after my father, who was 46 at the time, was diagnosed with a very aggressive leukemia, and then died shortly thereafter, which was shocking, obviously. The closer I get to that age, it feels even more shocking that he was so young. I didn't have any idea how to process that emotion or experience. The book was unexpectedly helpful. But it also introduced me to a writer who I'd never read before, who felt like she was looking at things from a different angle than everyone else.Of course, she had a couple more books come out after that. But I don't remember this distinctly, but probably what happened is I went to some bookstore, The Strand or something, and bought The White Album and Slouching Towards Bethlehem off the front table as everyone does because those books have just been there for decades.From that, I learned more, starting to understand how writing could work. I didn't realize how form and content could interact that way. Over the years, I would review a book by her or about her for one publication or another. Then when I was in graduate school, getting my MFA in nonfiction, I wrote a bit about her because I was going through a moment of not being sure if my husband and I were going to stay in New York or we were going to move to California. They sort of obligate you to go through a goodbye to all that phase if you are contemplating that — her famous essay about leaving New York. And then, we did stay in New York City. But ultimately, that's 20 years of history.Then in 2020, I was having a conversation (that was quite-early pandemic) with my agent about possible books I might write. I had outlined a bunch of books to her. Then she was like, “These all sound like great ideas. But I've always wanted to rep a book on Joan Didion. So I just wanted to put that bug in your ear.” I was like, “Oh, okay. That seems like something I should probably do.”It took a while to find an angle, which wound up being Didion in Hollywood. This is mostly because I realized that a lot of people don't really know her as a Hollywood figure, even though she's a pretty major Hollywood figure for a period of time. The more of her work I read, the more I realized that her work is fruitfully understood as the work of a woman who was profoundly influenced by (and later thinking in terms of Hollywood metaphors) whether she was writing about California or American politics or even grief.So that's the long-winded way of saying I wasn't, you know, acquainted with her work until adulthood, but then it became something that became a guiding light for me as a writer.That's really fascinating. I love it. Because again I think a lot of attention on Didion has been paid since her passing. But this book is really exciting because you came at it from looking at the work as it relates to Hollywood. What was Didion's experience in Hollywood? What would people have seen from it, but also, what is her place there?The directly Hollywood parts of her life start when she's in her 30s. She and her husband — John Gregory Dunn, also a writer and her screenwriting partner — moved from New York City, where they had met and gotten married, to Los Angeles. John's brother, Nick Dunn later became one of the most important early true crime writers at Vanity Fair, believe it or not. But at the time, he was working as a TV producer. He and his wife were there. So they moved to Los Angeles. It was sort of a moment where, you know, it's all well and good to be a journalist and a novelist. If you want to support yourself, Hollywood is where it's at.So they get there at a moment when the business is shifting from these big-budget movies — the Golden Age — to the new Hollywood, where everything is sort of gritty and small and countercultural. That's the moment they arrive. They worked in Hollywood. I mean, they worked literally in Hollywood for many years after that. And then in Hollywood even when they moved back to New York in the '80s as screenwriters still.People sometimes don't realize that they wrote a bunch of produced screenplays. The earliest was The Panic in Needle Park. Obviously, they adapted Didion's novel Play It As It Lays. There are several others, but one that a lot of people don't realize they wrote was the version of A Star is Born that stars Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson. It was their idea to shift the Star is Born template from Hollywood entities to rock stars. That was their idea. Of course, when Bradley Cooper made his version, he iterated on that. So their work was as screenwriters but also as figures in the Hollywood scene because they were literary people at the same time that they were screenwriters. They knew all the actors, and they knew all the producers and the executives.John actually wrote, I think, two of the best books ever written on Hollywood decades apart. One called The Studio, where he just roamed around on the Fox backlot. For a year for reasons he couldn't understand, he got access. That was right when the catastrophe that was Dr. Doolittle was coming out. So you get to hear the inside of the studio. Then later, he wrote a book called Monster, which is about their like eight-year long attempt to get their film Up Close and Personal made, which eventually they did. It's a really good look at what the normal Hollywood experience was at the time: which is like: you come up with an idea, but it will only vaguely resemble the final product once all the studios get done with it.So it's, it's really, that's all very interesting. They're threaded through the history of Hollywood in that period. On top of it for the book (I realized as I was working on it) that a lot of Didion's early life is influenced by especially her obsession with John Wayne and also with the bigger mythology of California and the West, a lot of which she sees as framed through Hollywood Westerns.Then in the '80s, she pivoted to political reporting for a long while. If you read her political writing, it is very, very, very much about Hollywood logic seeping into American political culture. There's an essay called “Inside Baseball” about the Dukakis campaign that appears in Political Fictions, her book that was published on September 11, 2001. In that book, she writes about how these political campaigns are directed and set up like a production for the cameras and how that was becoming not just the campaign, but the presidency itself. Of course, she had no use for Ronald Reagan, and everything she writes about him is very damning. But a lot of it was because she saw him as the embodiment of Hollywood logic entering the political sphere and felt like these are two separate things and they need to not be going together.So all of that appeared to me as I was reading. You know, once you see it, you can't unsee it. It just made sense for me to write about it. On top of it, she was still alive when I was writing the proposal and shopping it around. So she actually died two months after we sold the book to my publisher. It meant I was extra grateful for this angle because I knew there'd be a lot more books on her, but I wanted to come at it from an angle that I hadn't seen before. So many people have written about her in Hollywood before, but not quite through this lens.Yeah. What were some things that you discovered in the course of your research? Obviously, she's such an interesting figure, but she's also lived so very publicly that I'm just super interested to find out what are some of the things that you learned? It can be about her, but it can also be the Hollywood system as a whole.Yeah. I mean, I didn't interview her for obvious reasons.Understandable, entirely understandable.Pretty much everyone in her life also is gone with the exception really of Griffin Dunn, who is her nephew, John's nephew, the actor. But other than that, it felt like I needed to look at it through a critical lens. So it meant examining a lot of texts. A lot of Didion's magazine work (which was a huge part of her life) is published in the books that people read like Slouching Towards Bethlehem and The White Album and all the other books. What was interesting to me was discovering (I mean, not “discovering” because other people have read it) that there is some work that's not published and it's mostly her criticism.Most of that criticism was published in the late '50s and the early '60s when she was living in New York City, working at Vogue and trying to make it in the literary scene that was New York at that time, which was a very unique place. I mean, she was writing criticism and essays for both, you know, like National Review and The Nation at the same time, which was just hard to conceive of today. It was something you'd do back then. Yeah, wild stuff.A lot of that criticism was never collected into books. The most interesting is that she'd been working at Vogue for a long time in various positions, but she wound up getting added to the film critic column at Vogue in, '62, I want to say, although I might have that date slightly off. She basically alternated weeks with another critic for a few years, writing that until she started writing in movies proper. It's never a great idea to be a critic and a screenwriter at the same time.Her criticism is fascinating. So briefly, for instance, she shared that column with Pauline Kael. Pauline Kael became well known after she wrote about Bonnie and Clyde. This was prior to that. This is several years prior to that. They also hated each other for a long time afterward, which is funny, because, in some ways, their style is very different but their persona is actually very similar. So I wonder about that.But in any case, even when she wasn't sharing the column with Pauline Kael, it was a literal column in a magazine. So it's like one column of text, she can say barely anything. She was always a bit of a contrarian, but she was actively not interested in the things that were occupying New York critics at the time. Things like the Auteur Theory, what was happening in France, the downtown scene and the Shirley Clark's of the world. She had no use for it. At some point, she accuses Billy Wilder of having really no sense of humor, which is very funny.When you read her criticism, you see a person who is very invested in a classical notion of Hollywood as a place that shows us fantasies that we can indulge in for a while. She talks in her very first column about how she doesn't really need movies to be masterpieces, she just wants them to have moments. When she says moments, she means big swelling things that happen in a movie that make her feel things.It's so opposite, I think, to most people's view of Didion. Most people associate her with this snobbish elitism or something, which I don't think is untrue when we're talking about literature. But for her, the movies were like entertainment, and entering that business was a choice to enter that world. She wasn't attempting to elevate the discourse or something.I just think that's fascinating. She also has some great insights there. But as a film critic, I find myself disagreeing with most of her reviews. But I think that doesn't matter. It was more interesting to see how she conceived of the movies. There is a moment later on, in another piece that I don't think has been republished anywhere from the New York Review of Books, where she writes about the movies of Woody Allen. She hates them. It's right at the point where he's making like Manhattan and Annie Hall, like the good stuff. She just has no use for them. It's one of the funniest pieces. I won't spoil the ending because it's hilarious, and it's in the book.That writing was of huge interest to me and hasn't been republished in books. I was very grateful to get access to it, in part because it is in the archives — the electronic archives of the New York Public Library. But at the time, the library was closed. So I had to call the library and have a librarian get on Zoom with me for like an hour and a half to figure out how I could get in the proverbial back door of the library to get access while the library wasn't open.That's magnificent. That's such a cool way to go to the archives because some stuff just hasn't been published. If it wasn't digitized, then it's not digitized. That's incredible.Yeah, it's there, but you can barely print them off because they're in PDFs. They're like scanned images that are super high res, so the printer just dies when you try to print them. It's all very fascinating. I hope it gets republished at some point because I think there's enough interest in her work that it's fascinating to see this other aspect of her taste and her persona.It's really interesting that she seems to have wanted to meet the medium where it is, right? She wasn't trying to literary-up Hollywood. I mean, LA can be a bit of a friction. It's not exactly a literary town in the way that some East Coast metropolises can be. It is interesting that she was enamored by the movies. Do you want to speak about what things were like for her when she moved out?Yeah, it is funny because, at the same time, the first two movies that they wrote and produced are The Panic in Needle Park, which is probably the most new Hollywood movie you can imagine. It's about addicts at Needle Park, which is actually right where the 72nd Street subway stop is on the Upper West Side. If people have been there, it's hard to imagine. But that was apparently where they all sat around, and there were a lot of needles. It's apparently the first movie supposedly where someone shoots up live on camera.So it was the '70s. That's amazing.Yes, and it launched Al Pacino's film career! Yeah, it's wild. You watch it and you're just like, “How is this coming from the woman who's about all this arty farty stuff in the movies.” And Play It As It Lays has a very similar, almost avant-garde vibe to it. It's very, very interesting. You see it later on in the work that they made.A key thing to remember about them (and something I didn't realize before I started researching the book)was that Didion and Dunn were novelists who worked in journalism because everybody did. They wrote movies, according to them (you can only go off of what they said. A lot of it is John writing these jaunty articles. He's a very funny writer) because “we had tuition and a mortgage. This is how you pay for it.”This comes up later on, they needed to keep their WGA insurance because John had heart trouble. The best way to have health insurance was to remain in the Writers Guild. Remaining in the Writers Guild means you had to have a certain amount of work produced through union means. They were big union supporters. For them this was not, this was very strictly not an auteurist undertaking. This was not like, “Oh, I'm gonna go write these amazing screenplays that give my concept of the world to the audience.” It's not like Bonnie and Clyding going on here. It's very like, “We wrote these based on some stories that we thought would be cool.”I like that a lot. Like the idea that A Star is Born was like a pot boiler. That's really delightful.Completely. It was totally taken away from them by Streisand and John Peters at some point. But they were like, “Yeah, I mean, you know, it happens. We still got paid.”Yeah, if it can happen to Superman, it can happen to you.It happens to everybody, you know, don't get too precious about it. The important thing is did your novel come out and was it supported by its publisher?So just tracing some of their arcs in Hollywood. Obviously, Didion's one of the most influential writers of her generation, there's a very rich literary tradition. Where do we see her footprint, her imprint in Hollywood? What are some of the ways that we can see her register in Hollywood, or reverberate outside of it?In the business itself, I don't know that she was influential directly. What we see is on the outside of it. So a lot of people were friends. She was like a famous hostess, famous hostess. The New York Public Library archives are set to open at the end of March, of Didion and Dunn's work, which was like completely incidental to my publication date. I just got lucky. There's a bunch of screenplays in there that they worked on that weren't produced. There's also her cookbooks, and I'm very excited to go through those and see that. So you might meet somebody there.Her account of what the vibe was when the Manson murders occurred, which is published in her essay The White Album, is still the one people talk about, even though there are a lot of different ways to come at it. That's how we think about the Manson murders: through her lens. Later on, when she's not writing directly about Hollywood anymore (and not really writing in Hollywood as much) but instead is writing about the headlines, about news events, about sensationalism in the news, she becomes a great media critic. We start to see her taking the things that she learned (having been around Hollywood people, having been on movie sets, having seen how the sausage is made) and she starts writing about politics. In that age, it is Hollywood's logic that you perform for the TV. We have the debates suddenly becoming televised, the conventions becoming televised, we start to see candidates who seem specifically groomed to win because they look good on TV. They're starting to win and rule the day.She writes about Newt Gingrich. Of course, Gingrich was the first politician to figure out how to harness C-SPAN to his own ends — the fact that there were TV cameras on the congressional floor. So she's writing about all of this stuff at a time when you can see other people writing about it. I mean, Neil Postman famously writes about it. But the way Didion does it is always very pegged to reviewing somebody's book, or she's thinking about a particular event, or she's been on the campaign plane or something like that. Like she's been on the inside, but with an outsider's eye.That also crops up in, for instance, her essays. “Sentimental Journeys” is one of her most famous ones. That one's about the case of the Central Park Five, and the jogger who was murdered. Of course, now, we're many decades out from that, and the convictions were vacated. We know about coerced confessions. Also Donald Trump arrives in the middle of that whole thing.But she's actually not interested in the guilt or innocence question, because a lot of people were writing about that. She's interested in how the city of New York and the nation perform themselves for themselves, seeing themselves through the long lens of a movie and telling themselves stories about themselves. You see this over and over in her writing, no matter what she's writing about. I think once she moved away from writing about the business so much, she became very interested in how Hollywood logic had taken over American public life writ large.That's fascinating. Like, again, she spends time in the industry, then basically she can only see it through that lens. Of course, Michael Dukakis in a tank is trying to be a set piece, of course in front of the Berlin Wall, you're finally doing set decoration rather than doing it outside of a brick wall somewhere. You mentioned the New York thing in Performing New York. I have lived in the city for over a decade now. The dumbest thing is when the mayor gets to wear the silly jacket whenever there's a snowstorm that says “Mr. Mayor.” It's all an act in so many ways. I guess that political choreography had to come from somewhere, and it seems like she was documenting a lot of that initial rise.Yeah, I think she really saw it. The question I would ask her, if I could, is how cognizant she was that she kept doing that. As someone who's written for a long time, you don't always recognize that you have the one thing you write about all the time. Other people then bring it up to you and you're like, “Oh, I guess you're right.” Even when you move into her grief memoir phase, which is how I think about the last few original works that she published, she uses movie logic constantly in those.I mean, The Year of Magical Thinking is a cyclical book, she goes over the same events over and over. But if you actually look at the language she's using, she talks about running the tape back, she talks about the edit, she talks about all these things as if she's running her own life through how a movie would tell a story. Maybe she knew very deliberately. She's not a person who does things just haphazardly, but it has the feeling of being so baked into her psyche at this point that she would never even think of trying to escape it.Fascinating.Yeah, that idea that you don't know what you are potentially doing, I've thought about that. I don't know what mine is. But either way. It's such a cool way to look at it. On a certain level, she pretty much succeeded at that, though, right? I think that when people think about Joan Didion, they think about a life that freshens up a movie, right? Like, it workedVery much, yeah. I'm gonna be really curious to see what happens over the next 10 years or so. I've been thinking about figures like Sylvia Plath or women with larger-than-life iconography and reputation and how there's a constant need to relook at their legacies and reinvent and rethink and reimagine them. There's a lot in the life of Didion that I think remains to be explored. I'm really curious to see where people go with it, especially with the opening of these archives and new personal information making its way into the world.Yeah, even just your ability to break some of those stories that have been locked away in archives out sounds like a really exciting addition to the scholarship. Just backing out a little bit, we live in a moment in which the relationship between pop culture and political life is fairly directly intertwined. Setting aside the steel-plated elephant in the room, you and I are friendly because we bonded over this idea that movies really are consequential. Coming out of this book and coming out of reporting on it, what are some of the relevances for today in particular?Yeah, I mean, a lot more than I thought, I guess, five years ago. I started work on the book at the end of Trump One, and it's coming out at the beginning of Trump Two, and there was this period in the middle of a slightly different vibe. But even then I watch TikTok or whatever. You see people talk about “main character energy” or the “vibe shift” or all of romanticizing your life. I would have loved to read a Didion essay on the way that young people sort of view themselves through the logic of the screens they have lived on and the way that has shaped America for a long time.I should confirm this, I don't think she wrote about Obama, or if she did, it was only a little bit. So her political writing ends in George W. Bush's era. I think there's one piece on Obama, and then she's writing about other things. It's just interesting to think about how her ideas of what has happened to political culture in America have seeped into the present day.I think the Hollywood logic, the cinematic logic has given way to reality TV logic. That's very much the logic of the Trump world, right? Still performing for cameras, but the cameras have shifted. The way that we want things from the cameras has shifted, too. Reality TV is a lot about creating moments of drama where they may or may not actually exist and bombarding you with them. I think that's a lot of what we see and what we feel now. I have to imagine she would think about it that way.There is one interesting essay that I feel has only recently been talked about. It's at the beginning of my book, too. It was in a documentary, and Gia Tolentino wrote about it recently. It's this essay she wrote in 2000 about Martha Stewart and about Martha Stewart's website. It feels like the 2000s was like, “What is this website thing? Why are people so into it?” But really, it's an essay about parasocial relationships that people develop (with women in particular) who they invent stories around and how those stories correspond to greater American archetypes. It's a really interesting essay, not least because I think it's an essay also about people's parasocial relationships with Joan Didion.So the rise of her celebrity in the 21st century, where people know who she is and carry around a tote bag, but don't really know what they're getting themselves into is very interesting to me. I think it is also something she thought about quite a bit, while also consciously courting it.Yeah, I mean, that makes a ton of sense. For someone who was so adept at using cinematic language to describe her own life with every living being having a camera directly next to them at all times. It seems like we are very much living in a world that she had at least put a lot of thought into, even if the technology wasn't around for her to specifically address it.Yes, completely.On that note, where can folks find the book? Where can folks find you? What's the elevator pitch for why they ought to check this out? Joan Didion superfan or just rather novice?Exactly! I think this book is not just for the fans, let me put it that way. Certainly, I think anyone who considers themselves a Didion fan will have a lot to enjoy here. The stuff you didn't know, hadn't read or just a new way to think through her cultural impact. But also, this is really a book that's as much for people who are just interested in thinking about the world we live in today a little critically. It's certainly a biography of American political culture as much as it is of Didion. There's a great deal of Hollywood history in there as well. Thinking about that sweep of the American century and change is what the book is doing. It's very, very, very informed by what I do in my day job as a movie critic at The New York Times. Thinking about what movies mean, what do they tell us about ourselves? I think this is what this book does. I have been told it's very fun to read. So I'm happy about that. It's not ponderous at all, which is good. It's also not that long.It comes out March 11th from Live Right, which is a Norton imprint. There will be an audiobook at the end of May that I am reading, which I'm excited about. And I'll be on tour for a large amount of March on the East Coast. Then in California, there's a virtual date, and there's a good chance I'll be popping up elsewhere all year, too. Those updates will be on my social feeds, which are all @alissawilkinson on whatever platform except X, which is fine because I don't really post there anymore.Alyssa, thank you so much for coming on.Thank you so much.Edited by Crystal Wang.If you have anything you'd like to see in this Sunday special, shoot me an email. Comment below! Thanks for reading, and thanks so much for supporting Numlock.Thank you so much for becoming a paid subscriber! Send links to me on Twitter at @WaltHickey or email me with numbers, tips or feedback at walt@numlock.news. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.numlock.com/subscribe

Jackson Howard is an editor and writer from Los Angeles who lives in Brooklyn. He's Senior Editor at Farrar, Straus and Giroux and its imprints MCD and AUWA (headed by Questlove), where he acquires and edits a broad range of fiction and nonfiction. Writers he has published include Judith Butler, Brontez Purnell, Catherine Lacey, Bryan Washington, Laura van den Berg, Sarah Schulman, Jonathan Escoffery, Fernando A. Flores, Susan Straight, Imogen Binnie, Shon Faye, Henry Hoke, Thomas Grattan, Venita Blackburn, Missouri Williams, and many others. Books he has edited have won or been nominated for the Booker Prize, the National Book Award, the Kirkus Prize, the Lambda Literary Award, the PEN Open Book Award, the PEN/Faulkner Award, the PEN/Hemingway Award, and the Los Angeles Times Award for First Fiction. A longtime Pitchfork contributor, his reviews, profiles, and essays have also appeared in The New York Times Magazine, The Cut, Rolling Stone, The Ringer, W., i-D, office, Document, and elsewhere. In 2023, he was featured in New York magazine's Power Issue and was named one of Harper's BAZAAR's 36 Voices of Now and part of Town & Country's Creative Aristocracy. In 2022, he was named a Star Watch Honoree by Publishers Weekly. _________________________________ The Critic and Her Publics Hosted by Merve Emre • Edited by Michele Moses • Music by Dani Lencioni • Art by Leanne Shapton • Sponsored by Alfred A. Knopf The Critic and Her Publics is a co-production between the Shapiro Center for Creative Writing and Criticism at Wesleyan University, New York Review of Books, and Lit Hub.

“The idea of analytic neutrality, which was more or less a cliche truth when I was training back in the 1980s, is clearly getting at something very important, which is that we mustn't try to pre-conceive where the patient's development is going to take him or her. But that doesn't mean that the development is not in a direction. Aristotle famously said that the human being is a ‘zoon politikon', a creature who belongs in a somewhat structured society. Healthy development is in that sort of direction as we become more integrated, as our ‘ghosts become more like ancestors', to use that famous metaphor. We become more aware of the reality of other people and their real as opposed to their fantasy importance in the ecosystem of which we are all part. And this makes possible the sort of ethical realization that Levinas was talking about. We recognize the reality of the other. We discover that we are interconnected. We are part of something that is hugely greater than ourselves and that goes beyond our knowing. But of course, that doesn't mean that we are not also selfish and unique selves. It's that we are under pressure, so to speak, from both quarters.”  Episode Description: We begin with David's description of Freud's view of religion as offering  "compellingly attractive" illusions in the face of the helplessness we face by life's and death's unpredictability. Alternatively, David suggests that religions provide 'objects', ie Gods, that are importantly allegorical and offer an ‘ethical seriousness' over time. We discuss the ability of these allegories to offer possibilities of 'transcendence' in a world that he sees as often limited to the material. He presents Levinas' view of the responsibility we all have when encountering "the face of the other" - a responsibility that is not chosen but "slipped into my consciousness like a thief." We consider the ethical differences between one's superego and one's conscience. We close with David sharing with us the vicissitudes of his early life that, as for us all, form a context for our later interests.     Our Guest: David Black studied philosophy and Eastern religions before training in London, first as a pastoral counsellor and later as a psychoanalyst. He is a Fellow of the British Psychoanalytical Society, now retired, who has written widely on psychoanalysis in relation to matters of ethics and religion. In 2006 he edited Psychoanalysis and Religion in the Twenty-first Century. He has published two collections of his own psychoanalytic papers, most recently Psychoanalysis and Ethics: the Necessity of Perspective. He is also a poet and translator, whose translation of Dante's Purgatorio was published in 2021 in the New York Review of Books Classics series. (It was later the winner of the annual American National Translation Award in Poetry.) Visit David Black's website at: https://www.dmblack.net.    Recommended Readings: Black, D.M. Psychoanalysis and Ethics: The Necessity of Perspective. (2024: Routledge New Library of Psychoanalysis.)   Chetrit-Vatine, V. Primal Seduction, Matricial Space, and Asymmetry in the Psychoanalytic Encounter. (2004: International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 85: 4.   Lear, J. Wisdom Won from Illness. (2017: Harvard University Press.)   Lemma, A. First Principles: Applied Ethics for Psychoanalytic Practice. (2023: Oxford University Press.)   Levinas, E. Ethics as First Philosophy. In The Levinas Reader, ed. Sean Hand. (1989: Blackwell Publishing.)   Loewald, H. Papers on Psychoanalysis. (1980: Yale University Press.)

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comIan is a historian, a journalist, and an old friend. He's currently the Paul Williams Professor of Human Rights and Journalism at Bard College. He served as the editor of The New York Review of Books and as foreign editor of The Spectator, where he still writes. He has written many books, including Theater of Cruelty, The Churchill Complex, and The Collaborators — which we discussed on the Dishcast in 2023. This week we're covering his latest book, Spinoza: Freedom's Messiah.For two clips of our convo — on cancel culture in the 17th century, and how Western liberalism is dying today — see our YouTube page.Other topics: Ian's Dutch and Jewish roots; the Golden Age of Amsterdam; its central role in finance and trade; when Holland was a republic surrounded by monarchies; the Quakers; Descartes; Hobbes; how sectarianism is the greatest danger to free thought; religious zealots; Cromwell; Voltaire; Locke; the asceticism of Spinoza; his practical skill with glasswork; the religious dissents he published anonymously; his excommunication; his lack of lovers but plentiful friends; how most of his published work was posthumous; his death at 44; the French philosophers of the Enlightenment shaped by Spinoza; how he inspired Marx and Freud; why he admired Jesus; Zionism; universalism; Socrates; Strauss' Persecution and the Art of Writing; Puritanism through today; trans activists as gnostic; Judith Butler; the right-wing populist surge in Europe; mass migration; Brexit and the Tory fuckup; Trump's near-alliance with Russia; DOGE; the rising tribalism of today; and thinking clearly as the secret to happiness.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Evan Wolfson on the history of marriage equality, Nick Denton on China and AI, Francis Collins on faith and science, Michael Lewis on government service, Douglas Murray on Israel and Gaza, and Mike White of White Lotus fame. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Mystics and prophets have reported receiving visions from the Divine for centuries—”Thus saith the Lord…”—Hildegard of Bingen, Teresa of Avila, Ignatius of Loyola, Catherine of Siena, or Julian of Norwich. The list goes on.But what would you think if you met a seer of visions in the present day? Maybe you have.What about a prophet whose visions came like a movie screen unfurled before him, the images grotesque and vivid, all in the unsuspecting backwoods setting of Lookout Mountain, deep in the south of Tennessee.Would you believe it? Would you believe him? The beauty of fiction allows the reader to join the author in asking: What if?That's exactly what Jamie Quatro has allowed us to do in her newest work of literary fiction, Two-Step Devil.What if an earnest and wildly misunderstood Christian is left alone on Lookout Mountain? What if the receiver of visions makes art that reaches a girl who's stuck in the darkest grip of a fraught world? What if the Devil really did sit in the corner of the kitchen, wearing a cowboy hat, and what if he got to tell his own side of the Biblical story?On today's episode novelist Jamie Quatro joins Macie Bridge to share about her relationship to the theological exploration within her latest novel, Two-Step Devil; her experience of being a Christian and a writer, but not a “Christian Writer”; and how the trinity of main characters in the novel speak to and open up her own deepest concerns about the state of our country and the world we inhabit.Jamie Quatro is the New York Times Notable author of I Want to Show You More, and Fire Sermon. *Two-Step Devil* is her latest work and is the winner of the 2024 Willie Morris Award for Southern Writing, and it's also been named a New York Times Editor's Choice, among other accolades. Jamie teaches in the Sewanee School of Letters MFA program.SPOILER ALERT! This episode contains substantial spoilers to the novel's plot, so if you'd like to read it for yourself, first grab a copy from your local bookstore, then two-step on back over here to listen to this conversation!About Jamie QuatroJamie Quatro is the New York Times Notable author of I Want to Show You More, a finalist for the Los Angeles Times Art Seidenbaum Award and the National Book Critics Circle's John Leonard Prize, and Fire Sermon, a Book of the Year for the Economist, San Francisco Chronicle, LitHub, Bloomberg, and the Times Literary Supplement. Her most recent novel, Two-Step Devil, is the winner of the 2024 Willie Morris Award for Southern Writing. It has also been named a New York Times Editor's Choice, a 2025 ALA Notable Book, and a Best Book of 2024 by the Paris Review and the Atlanta Journal Constitution. A new story collection is forthcoming from Grove Press.Quatro's fiction has appeared or is forthcoming in The New Yorker, The Paris Review, Harper's, the New York Review of Books, Ploughshares, and elsewhere. She is the recipient of fellowships from MacDowell, Yaddo, Bread Loaf, and La Maison Dora Maar in Ménerbes, France, where she will be in residence in 2025. Quatro holds an MA in English from the College of William and Mary and an MFA in fiction from the Bennington College Writing Seminars. She teaches in the Sewanee School of Letters MFA program, and lives with her family in Chattanooga, Tennessee.Show NotesGet your copy of Two-Step Devil by Jamie QuatroClick here to view the art that inspired Jamie Quatro's Two-Step DevilProduction NotesThis podcast featured Jamie Quatro with Macie BridgeEdited and Produced by Evan RosaHosted by Evan RosaProduction Assistance by Macie Bridge, Alexa Rollow, Zoë Halaban, Kacie Barrett & Emily BrookfieldA Production of the Yale Center for Faith & Culture at Yale Divinity School https://faith.yale.edu/aboutSupport For the Life of the World podcast by giving to the Yale Center for Faith & Culture: https://faith.yale.edu/give

Stand Up is a daily podcast that I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more GET TICKETS TO PODJAM II In Vegas March 27-30   Waj Joins me at 26 mins. Check out his new show on youtube ‘America Unhinged,' with Francesca Fiorentini and Wajahat Ali - Zeteo's new weekly show following Trump's first 100 days in office. Wajahat Ali is a Daily Beast columnist, public speaker, recovering attorney, and tired dad of three cute kids. Get his book Go Back To Where You Came From: And, Other Helpful Recommendations on Becoming American which will be published in January 2022 by Norton. He believes in sharing stories that are by us, for everyone: universal narratives told through a culturally specific lens to entertain, educate and bridge the global divides. Listen to WAj and DAnielle Moodie on Democracy-ish  He frequently appears on television and podcasts for his brilliant, incisive, and witty political commentary. Born in the Bay Area, California to Pakistani immigrant parents, Ali went to school wearing Husky pants and knowing only three words of English. He graduated from UC Berkeley with an English major and became a licensed attorney. He knows what it feels like to be the token minority in the classroom and the darkest person in a boardroom. Like Spiderman, he's often had the power and responsibility of being the cultural ambassador of an entire group of people, those who are often marginalized, silenced, or reduced to stereotypes. His essays, interviews, and reporting have appeared in The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Washington Post, The Guardian, and New York Review of Books. Ali has spoken at many organizations, from Google to Walmart-Jet to Princeton University to the United Nations to the Chandni Indian-Pakistani Restaurant in Newark, California, and his living room in front of his three kids. Join us Monday's and Thursday's at 8EST for our Bi-Weekly Happy Hour Hangout!  Pete on Blue Sky Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube  Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art  Hire DJ Monzyk to build your website or help you with Marketing  

Should lawyers, home alarm fitters, hairdressers and plumbers all have to get a license to do their business? And what about dog walkers and surgeons? It's an absurd question, of course, but as Rebecca Haw Allensworth reveals in her new book, The Licensing Racket, we live in absurdly credentialed times. As Allensworth notes, at a moment in history when AI is about to replace many professional workers with bots, there really are required licenses for “trades” like home alarm fitters. And what about podcasters? Should amateurs like myself have to get a professional license to broadcast conversations with experts like Rebecca Haw Allensworth?Here are the 5 KEEN-ON takeaways from our conversation with Allensworth:* Licensing as exclusion rather than protection: Allensworth argues that many professional licensing requirements serve more to restrict entry to professions and maintain high prices than to actually protect the public.* Self-regulation creates conflicts of interest: Licensing boards are typically composed of professionals from the industry they regulate, creating inherent conflicts where they prioritize their profession's interests over public protection.* Appropriate vs. excessive licensing: While Allensworth supports licensing for complex and dangerous professions (doctors, lawyers, pilots), she criticizes excessive requirements for jobs like hairstyling, which requires as many educational hours as law school.* Regulatory failure in healthcare: The licensing system contributes to America's healthcare problems by increasing costs and creating scarcity, while simultaneously failing to effectively discipline dangerous practitioners (as seen in the opioid crisis).* Alternative approaches to professionalism: Professionalism doesn't necessarily require "closure" (restricting who can enter). Certification systems that signal quality without prohibiting practice may be more effective than licensing for many occupations.Rebecca Haw Allensworth is a Associate Dean for Research and holds the David Daniels Allen Distinguished Chair of Law at Vanderbilt Law School. She studies antitrust and professional licensing. Her work on antitrust focuses on how to adapt competition policy to address competition problems posed by tech platforms and her research on professional licensing explores how lawmakers should balance the need for expertise in regulating the professions with the problems that can arise from self-regulation. She is the author of The Licensing Racket: How We Decide Who Is Allowed to Work and Why It Goes Wrong? (Harvard University Press, February 2025), a deep dive into the pathologies of professional licensing in America. Her article about medical licensing boards and unethical prescribers, “Licensed to Pill,” appeared in The New York Review of Books in July 2020. Her work has been cited by the U.S. Supreme Court and has received the thirteenth annual Jerry S. Cohen Memorial Fund Writing Award for groundbreaking antitrust scholarship.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Anatol Lieven looks at the global dimensions of Trumpism. Quinn Slobodian, who wrote a recent article for the New York Review of Books, muses on whether Trump is a neoliberal and examines the three major strands of DOGE-ism. Behind the News, hosted by Doug Henwood, covers the worlds of economics and politics and their complex interactions, from the local to the global. Find the archive online: https://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/radio.html

On January 31, Film at Lincoln Center opened a landmark new retrospective titled Frederick Wiseman: An American Institution. The series showcases new 4K restorations of over thirty of the filmmaker's works, which together form a monumental survey of modern American life—with a frequent focus on the intersections of individuals and institutions. Wiseman just turned 95 on New Year's Day, and the FLC series comes on the heels of similar retrospectives in Chicago, Portland, Maine, and Vancouver—with more planned for Paris, Los Angeles, St. Louis, Boston, and beyond. How does one even begin to consider a body of work so sprawling, so rigorous, and so significant? For today's episode, Film Comment hosted a “Wiseman Potluck,” where each guest was tasked with bringing one film that especially resonates with them to the discussion. Film Comment Editors Clinton Krute and Devika Girish were joined by Andrew Katzenstein, the author of a terrific new essay on Wiseman for the New York Review of Books; Genevieve Yue, who interviewed the legendary filmmaker for the Film Comment Letter in 2022; and FC‘s very own Michael Blair. The group covered the films Central Park (1990), At Berkeley (2013), Basic Training (1971), Aspen (1991), Blind (1986), and more, and reflected on Wiseman's politics of observation and striking eye for beauty. The Mains: Central Park (3:30) At Berkeley (17:30) Law and Order + Basic Training (23:10) Aspen (35:20) Blind (47:31) Some Desserts: The Store (1983) Un Couple (2022) Menus-Plaisirs – Les Troisgros (2023)

A few moments after birth we begin to use our lungs for the first time. From then on, we must continue breathing for as long as we are alive. And although this mostly happens unconsciously, in a society plagued by anxiety, climate change, environmental racism, and illness, there are more and more instances that “teach us about the privilege that is breathing.” Why do we so easily forget the air that we breathe in common? What does it mean to breathe when the environment that sustains life now threatens it? And how can life continue to flourish under conditions that are increasingly toxic?  To approach these questions, Jamieson Webster draws on psychoanalytic theory and reflects on her own experiences as an asthmatic teenager, a deep-sea diver, a palliative psychologist during COVID, a psychoanalyst attentive to the somatic, and a new mother. The result is a compassionate and timely exploration of air and breathing as a way to undo the pervasive myth of the individual by considering our dependence on invisible systems, on one another, and the way we have violently neglected this important aspect of life. Jamieson Webster is a psychoanalyst in private practice in New York City and faculty at The New School for Social Research. She is the author, most recently, of On Breathing (Peninusula Press, UK; Catapult, US), as well as, Conversion Disorder: Listening to the Body in Psychoanalysis (Columbia, 2018) and, with Simon Critchley, Stay, Illusion! The Hamlet Doctrine (Vintage Random House, 2013). She has written regularly for Artforum, The New York Times, The New York Review of Books, as well as, many psychoanalytic publications. Helena Vissing, PsyD, SEP, PMH-C is a Licensed Psychologist practicing in California and Associate Professor in the Somatic Psychology program at California Institute of Integral Studies. She can be reached at contact@helenavissing.com. She is the author of Somatic Maternal Healing: Psychodynamic and Somatic Treatment of Trauma in the Perinatal Period (Routledge, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/psychoanalysis

A few moments after birth we begin to use our lungs for the first time. From then on, we must continue breathing for as long as we are alive. And although this mostly happens unconsciously, in a society plagued by anxiety, climate change, environmental racism, and illness, there are more and more instances that “teach us about the privilege that is breathing.” Why do we so easily forget the air that we breathe in common? What does it mean to breathe when the environment that sustains life now threatens it? And how can life continue to flourish under conditions that are increasingly toxic?  To approach these questions, Jamieson Webster draws on psychoanalytic theory and reflects on her own experiences as an asthmatic teenager, a deep-sea diver, a palliative psychologist during COVID, a psychoanalyst attentive to the somatic, and a new mother. The result is a compassionate and timely exploration of air and breathing as a way to undo the pervasive myth of the individual by considering our dependence on invisible systems, on one another, and the way we have violently neglected this important aspect of life. Jamieson Webster is a psychoanalyst in private practice in New York City and faculty at The New School for Social Research. She is the author, most recently, of On Breathing (Peninusula Press, UK; Catapult, US), as well as, Conversion Disorder: Listening to the Body in Psychoanalysis (Columbia, 2018) and, with Simon Critchley, Stay, Illusion! The Hamlet Doctrine (Vintage Random House, 2013). She has written regularly for Artforum, The New York Times, The New York Review of Books, as well as, many psychoanalytic publications. Helena Vissing, PsyD, SEP, PMH-C is a Licensed Psychologist practicing in California and Associate Professor in the Somatic Psychology program at California Institute of Integral Studies. She can be reached at contact@helenavissing.com. She is the author of Somatic Maternal Healing: Psychodynamic and Somatic Treatment of Trauma in the Perinatal Period (Routledge, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In this episode of High Theory, Ryan Ruby talks to us about Poetry. Our standard definition of poetry today is an institutional one, much like contemporary art: if art is what artists and museums and collectors call art, poetry is what poets and professors and publishers say is poetry. Ruby argues that this indefinable thing humans have been doing well nigh forever is better understood as a medium than a form. Poetry is a way of storing and transmitting information, a mechanism of entertainment and authority, and a speech act that attends to changes of state. In the episode, Ryan references Eric Havelock, author of The Muse Learns to Write (Yale UP, 1986), who described the Homeric poems as the encyclopedia of Bronze age Greece. He also cites Marcel Detienne's book The Masters of Truth in Archaic Greece (trans. Janet Lloyd, Zone Books, 1996) who describes poetry as a form of “magico-religious speech.” Ryan Ruby is a writer, most recently of the book length poem Context Collapse: A Poem Containing the History of Poetry (Seven Stories Press, 2024). It got reviewed in The New York Times. He has also written a novel, titled The Zero and the One (Twelve Books, 2017), and book reviews and essays for all the fancy places: The New Yorker, Harper's, The New York Review of Books, The New York Times, Bookforum, New Left Review, etc. He is currently at work on a nonfiction narrative book about Berlin called Ringbahn for Farrar Straus, and Giroux. The image for this episode is a still from an animation of a supercomputer simulation of a pair of neutron stars colliding, merging and forming a black hole, created at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Image courtesy of the NASA Goddard Photo and Video Flickr account. This image is in the public domain. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In this episode of High Theory, Ryan Ruby talks to us about Poetry. Our standard definition of poetry today is an institutional one, much like contemporary art: if art is what artists and museums and collectors call art, poetry is what poets and professors and publishers say is poetry. Ruby argues that this indefinable thing humans have been doing well nigh forever is better understood as a medium than a form. Poetry is a way of storing and transmitting information, a mechanism of entertainment and authority, and a speech act that attends to changes of state. In the episode, Ryan references Eric Havelock, author of The Muse Learns to Write (Yale UP, 1986), who described the Homeric poems as the encyclopedia of Bronze age Greece. He also cites Marcel Detienne's book The Masters of Truth in Archaic Greece (trans. Janet Lloyd, Zone Books, 1996) who describes poetry as a form of “magico-religious speech.” Ryan Ruby is a writer, most recently of the book length poem Context Collapse: A Poem Containing the History of Poetry (Seven Stories Press, 2024). It got reviewed in The New York Times. He has also written a novel, titled The Zero and the One (Twelve Books, 2017), and book reviews and essays for all the fancy places: The New Yorker, Harper's, The New York Review of Books, The New York Times, Bookforum, New Left Review, etc. He is currently at work on a nonfiction narrative book about Berlin called Ringbahn for Farrar Straus, and Giroux. The image for this episode is a still from an animation of a supercomputer simulation of a pair of neutron stars colliding, merging and forming a black hole, created at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Image courtesy of the NASA Goddard Photo and Video Flickr account. This image is in the public domain. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literary-studies

A few moments after birth we begin to use our lungs for the first time. From then on, we must continue breathing for as long as we are alive. And although this mostly happens unconsciously, in a society plagued by anxiety, climate change, environmental racism, and illness, there are more and more instances that “teach us about the privilege that is breathing.” Why do we so easily forget the air that we breathe in common? What does it mean to breathe when the environment that sustains life now threatens it? And how can life continue to flourish under conditions that are increasingly toxic?  To approach these questions, Jamieson Webster draws on psychoanalytic theory and reflects on her own experiences as an asthmatic teenager, a deep-sea diver, a palliative psychologist during COVID, a psychoanalyst attentive to the somatic, and a new mother. The result is a compassionate and timely exploration of air and breathing as a way to undo the pervasive myth of the individual by considering our dependence on invisible systems, on one another, and the way we have violently neglected this important aspect of life. Jamieson Webster is a psychoanalyst in private practice in New York City and faculty at The New School for Social Research. She is the author, most recently, of On Breathing (Peninusula Press, UK; Catapult, US), as well as, Conversion Disorder: Listening to the Body in Psychoanalysis (Columbia, 2018) and, with Simon Critchley, Stay, Illusion! The Hamlet Doctrine (Vintage Random House, 2013). She has written regularly for Artforum, The New York Times, The New York Review of Books, as well as, many psychoanalytic publications. Helena Vissing, PsyD, SEP, PMH-C is a Licensed Psychologist practicing in California and Associate Professor in the Somatic Psychology program at California Institute of Integral Studies. She can be reached at contact@helenavissing.com. She is the author of Somatic Maternal Healing: Psychodynamic and Somatic Treatment of Trauma in the Perinatal Period (Routledge, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

Sarah Chihaya is a book critic, essayist, and editor. Her work has appeared in The New Yorker, The New York Review of Books, The Nation, New York magazine, The Atlantic, and The Yale Review, among other places, and she is the co-author of The Ferrante Letters: An Experiment in Collective Criticism. She has taught at Princeton University, New York University, and UC Berkeley. She is currently a contributing editor at Los Angeles Review of Books and lives in Brooklyn. Her new book is Bibliophobia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Atossa Araxia Abrahamian is a journalist and author who writes about the cracks in the nation-state system. A former editor at the Nation and Al Jazeera America, Abrahamian's reporting and criticism have appeared in the New York Review of Books, the New York Times, the London Review of Books, the Intercept, and many other publications. In her new book, The Hidden Globe: How Wealth Hacks the World, Abrahamian maps the hidden geography of the wealthy elite, exposing a parallel universe that transcends national borders, bureaucracy and red tape. From the legal twilight zones of Geneva art warehouses to passports for sale, this is a geography of wealth in the modern age. Joining her to discuss the book is Adam McCauley, the politics and philosophy writer and researcher. ------- If you'd like to become a Member and get access to all our full ad free conversations, plus all of our Members-only content, just visit intelligencesquared.com/membership to find out more. For £4.99 per month you'll also receive: - Full-length and ad-free Intelligence Squared episodes, wherever you get your podcasts - Bonus Intelligence Squared podcasts, curated feeds and members exclusive series - 15% discount on livestreams and in-person tickets for all Intelligence Squared events ... Or Subscribe on Apple for £4.99: - Full-length and ad-free Intelligence Squared podcasts - Bonus Intelligence Squared podcasts, curated feeds and members exclusive series … Already a subscriber? Thank you for supporting our mission to foster honest debate and compelling conversations! Visit intelligencesquared.com to explore all your benefits including ad-free podcasts, exclusive bonus content and early access. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Stand Up is a daily podcast that I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more GET TICKETS TO PODJAM II In Vegas March 27-30 Waj Joins me at 29 mins. Check out his new show on youtube ‘America Unhinged,' with Francesca Fiorentini and Wajahat Ali - Zeteo's new weekly show following Trump's first 100 days in office. Wajahat Ali is a Daily Beast columnist, public speaker, recovering attorney, and tired dad of three cute kids. Get his book Go Back To Where You Came From: And, Other Helpful Recommendations on Becoming American which will be published in January 2022 by Norton. He believes in sharing stories that are by us, for everyone: universal narratives told through a culturally specific lens to entertain, educate and bridge the global divides. Listen to WAj and DAnielle Moodie on Democracy-ish  He frequently appears on television and podcasts for his brilliant, incisive, and witty political commentary. Born in the Bay Area, California to Pakistani immigrant parents, Ali went to school wearing Husky pants and knowing only three words of English. He graduated from UC Berkeley with an English major and became a licensed attorney. He knows what it feels like to be the token minority in the classroom and the darkest person in a boardroom. Like Spiderman, he's often had the power and responsibility of being the cultural ambassador of an entire group of people, those who are often marginalized, silenced, or reduced to stereotypes. His essays, interviews, and reporting have appeared in The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Washington Post, The Guardian, and New York Review of Books. Ali has spoken at many organizations, from Google to Walmart-Jet to Princeton University to the United Nations to the Chandni Indian-Pakistani Restaurant in Newark, California, and his living room in front of his three kids.   Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube  Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art  Hire DJ Monzyk to build your website or help you with Marketing

Stand Up is a daily podcast that I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more GET TICKETS TO PODJAM II In Vegas March 27-30 Wajahat Ali is a Daily Beast columnist, public speaker, recovering attorney, and tired dad of three cute kids. Get his book Go Back To Where You Came From: And, Other Helpful Recommendations on Becoming American which will be published in January 2022 by Norton. He believes in sharing stories that are by us, for everyone: universal narratives told through a culturally specific lens to entertain, educate and bridge the global divides. Listen to WAj and DAnielle Moodie on Democracy-ish  He frequently appears on television and podcasts for his brilliant, incisive, and witty political commentary. Born in the Bay Area, California to Pakistani immigrant parents, Ali went to school wearing Husky pants and knowing only three words of English. He graduated from UC Berkeley with an English major and became a licensed attorney. He knows what it feels like to be the token minority in the classroom and the darkest person in a boardroom. Like Spiderman, he's often had the power and responsibility of being the cultural ambassador of an entire group of people, those who are often marginalized, silenced, or reduced to stereotypes. His essays, interviews, and reporting have appeared in The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Washington Post, The Guardian, and New York Review of Books. Ali has spoken at many organizations, from Google to Walmart-Jet to Princeton University to the United Nations to the Chandni Indian-Pakistani Restaurant in Newark, California, and his living room in front of his three kids.   Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube  Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art  Hire DJ Monzyk to build your website or help you with Marketing