���I was busy on other things at the time, so I didn't check out Mike Palij's citing of articles by Malcolm Gladwell and a response in TNR: For Gladwell's essay, see: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/08/10/090810fa_fact_gladwell
TNR response: http://tinyurl.com/mgas2v There were no takers to this from Mike: >I'm curious about Tipster's reactions to the TNR response and >Gladwell's review. Even non-eurocentric types. :-) Here's my reaction following a quick peruse of the articles. I'm not in a position to say much about the specific conflict re the U.S. of A, but Gladwell wrote something about Dickens and Victorian England that tends to confirm my sense that he makes strong assertions about t hings he doesn't know much about: >One of George Orwell’s finest essays takes Charles Dickens to task for his lack of “constructive suggestions.” Dickens was a powerful critic of Victorian England, a proud and lonely voice in the campaign for social reform…< Far from Dickens being a lonely voice, the Victorian era is famed for the reforming zeal of individuals and organisations intent on social reform: Reforming Acts Parliamentary historians often refer to the Victorian period as the Age of Reform - a time when both pressure groups and individual philanthropists were particularly active. Asa Briggs considers the internal and extra-parliamentary forces that br ought reform, regulation and legislation to a rapidly changing nation. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/reforming_acts_01.shtml Gladwell again: >Orwell didn’t think that Dickens should have written different novels; he loved Dickens. But he understood that Dickens bore the ideological marks of his time and place. His class did not see the English social order as tyrannical, worthy of being overthrown...”< Of course there was massive social inequality, and even after the great Reform Acts the male electorate was very limited (and no female suffrage). But the English social order a tyranny, worthy to be overthrown rather than reformed? Voltaire certainly didn't think so: "Voltaire greatly admired English religious toleration and freedom of speech, and saw these as necessary prerequisites for social and political progress. He saw England as a useful model for what he considered to be a backward France." http://www.lycos.com/info/voltaire--england-voltaire.html?page=2 Yes, British social reforms in the nineteenth century could be maddeningly slow, adancing in fits and starts, and often blocked by vested interests. But I hardly think that European countries that went the way of overthrowing the social order instead of reforming it (admittedly not always possible!) produced more liberal or tolerant societies than those that went the way of reform (Britain, Holland and the Scandinavian 20countries). Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org --------------------------------------------------- [tips] Drop Kicking Malcolm Gladwell, Part Deux Mike Palij Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:23:58 -0700 Boy, the folks at The New Republic must be in a feud with Malcolm Gladwell because on their website they have a response to his review in the New Yorker of the book and movie "To Kill A Mockingbird". See: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/08/04/what-is-malcolm-gladwell-talking-about.aspx For Gladwell's essay, see: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/08/10/090810fa_fact_gladwell This is "Part Deux" because I posted a similar titled comment on The New Repu blic's review of Gladwell's "Outliers" book back in January 2009. I'm curious about Tipster's reactions to the TNR response and Gladwell's review. Even non-eurocentric types. :-) -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
