Growing up in New York City, the four argued their way through their early manhood. Their chief rite of passage was passionate discussion of issues, especially the political issues that loomed over the 1930s and 1940s. Classmates at City College, they were sons of Jewish immigrants who were struggling to survive in a turbulent urban environment.
Irving Kristol, Irving Howe, Daniel Bell, and Nathan Glazer are the subjects of a fascinating documentary recently shown on public television and now available on videotape. This film, “Arguing the World,” traces the unforeseen changes that swept over the lives of the four men as the decades moved on. All but Irving Howe are still alive and working in professional fields where they have achieved notable reputations.
Much was distinctive about them as a group. One feature was their heritage of stories from the old world of Europe. As Daniel Bell says, “The immigrant Jews brought stories . . . we absorbed them at the kitchen table, literally.” What was going on in the European countries, especially the Soviet Union, proved of compelling interest to these intense young men.
On any given day they would debate for hours on end with one another and with others Marxism, Stalinism, and the Soviet experiment. At City College where they hung out, students were split into numerous political factions, all of which would passionately defend their position. As Nathan Glazer recalls, “Every alcove had its own ghetto.” Alcove one, for example, was occupied by the anti-Stalinist left, while alcove two was held by the pro-Stalinist left.
For the four, politics almost equaled life. A atmosphere of political radicalism permeated their existence. As Irving Howe explained, given the sense of poverty and social disintegration he experienced growing up, “it made sense to turn to politics.”
City College, their intellectual incubator, was located in Harlem; it was all male, and more radical than Harvard and Columbia. Howe told of how dingy the place was, but it had an atmosphere of “overheated intellectuality.” And Bell adds, “Most of the teachers were old dodos; we educated ourselves.” And another of the four boasts, “We got a much better education than college students get today.”
The non-aggression pact between Hitler and Stalin disillusioned the young foursome, as it did so many other leftists. The entry of the United States into World War II had a different effect. It made the four look upon their own country in a new way. As Bell points out, they had to take notice that this country had gone to war against fascism. Even with its devotion to capitalism the United States deserved some credit.
After the war, the four belonged to a larger group known as the “New York Intellectuals.” These were people “for whom ideas meant more than almost anything else.” As Alfred Kazin said of them, “they were critics of everything, especially of one another.”
When that famous flayer of leftists, Joe McCarthy, began his campaign against American Communists, the four were hard pressed to respond. They were caught in a dilemma: they said McCarthy was wrong but they also thought the influence of Communists pernicious. Looking back on that era, Glazer says: “We never managed to work out a good position. I still don’t think we have one.”
Even more fascinating, the problems of the student uprisings in the late 1960s and early 1970s discomfited some members of the group. By that time, Bell and Glazer were distinguished academics, the first at Columbia, Glazer at Berkeley. Despite the radicalism of their youth, these two did not have much respect for the latter-day student radicals. Though Howe established a working relationship with Students for a Democratic Society, Bell and Glazer judged the revolt fundamentally wrong-headed.
One of the most poignant statements in the film comes when Bell recounts his efforts to negotiate an end to the student building takeovers at Columbia. After failing, “I came home and burst into tears.” Shortly after, he decided that Columbia had been ruined and he accepted an offer to teach at Harvard.
There’s much more to this saga than can be summarized here. I recommend the film to anyone interested in the history of 20th century America. But I also urge people who reflect on aging to watch it.
The by-play between values held for decades and those that have changed fascinated me. The some holds true of long-lasting friendships. Painful breaks in personal relationships, as happens here, form another subject of great interest.
Some surprising gaps appear in this portrayal of these fascinating lives. Viewers hear nothing about the influence of family life after the four become adults. Similarly, though the four men all derive from the Jewish tradition, little of that rich heritage appears except with Kristol who comes to believe that religion has a role in public life. Finally, no one reflects explicitly upon growing old and the mystery that lies behind that experience.
Richard Griffin