Originally published in 1966 by Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.
Published 2002 by Transaction Publishers
Published 2017 by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
New material this edition copyright 2002 by Taylor & Francis.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Notice:
Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Number: 2001054000
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
DeMott, Benjamin, 1924
You dont say : modern American inhibitions / Benjamin DeMott; with a new introduction by the author.
p. cm. (Classics in communication and mass culture series) Originally published: New York : Harcourt, Brace & World, [1966]. ISBN 0-7658-0851-X (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. United StatesCivilization1945- 2. United StatesSocial life and customs1945-1970. 3. Inhibition. 4. TabooUnited States. I. Title. II. Series.
E169.12 .D44 2002
973.92dc21 2001054000
ISBN 13: 978-0-7658-0851-6 (pbk)
These essays were written in servicemore or lessof a single theme, namely that nothing is as simple as it looks. Theyre no good for dozing. At one moment a piece appears to belong to the political or cultural left, at the next it appears to belong to the political or cultural right, at the next its headed somewhere beyond. Elitist postures and mucker poses coexist from sentence to sentence. The writer identifies with a murderous assassin, a loving man of prayer, a youngster gripped by a fantasy of absolute freedomwhich is to say, the writers sympathy lacks decent limits. His apparent aim is to push hard enough for a grasp of whats out there to stir unease in readers about familiar perspectives and standard brand intellectual alliances. Putting the same point differently: the aim is to dramatize that thinking and imagining usually stops too soon, misses one or another moral, social or historical relation, is under ever slyer pressure to reduce, simplify, quitand should, no matter what, resist the pressure.
This perceived situationthought under pressure to stop too soondoesnt change a lot from decade to decade. Todays mornings talk show (we are speaking of a morning in the summer of the year 2001) has a question for the critic-at-large of a mass weekly specializing in entertainment: How do you explain current enthusiasm for television programs that inflict pain and humiliation? There were many this season and reports say there will be many more next year and on into the future. Give us your thoughts, sir. Critic-at-large explains, in the brief sentence allowed, that the 18 to 49 demographic coveted by advertisers likes these programs because young people like gross stuff and later they grow out of it. The short answer is appreciated, as are the short answers at presidential and other press conferences, as are truncated responses elsewhere. The latter habituate the world to pseudo-thought, gradually inducing belief that fullness of response is self-indulgent, vain, possibly even sick. To repeat: the pieces at hand were meant to say No to this belief.
They belong, obviously, to a moment when speaking out against the reductive impulsetreating that impulse as morally and politically destructivedid not yet require endless apologizing and self-justification. When exactly did this magical moment occur? Go by the calendar and it was forty-plus years ago. Go by essential history and the moment figures as the eve of the earthquake called the Sixties. For completely non-mysterious reasons, action was very shortly to become the word. During and after the earthquake, a northern white liberal who cared about race injustice, say, had to go south to participate, however marginally, in the civil rights struggle; I myself obeyed that imperative.
But just before that time, in the period of this books germination, a more detached, non-combatant stance remained an option that didnt inspire guilt; it seemed possible to speak sympathetically and still judgmentally, weighing the claims of the activists risking their skins day to day to effect change and the claims of those who deprecated the activists as self-deceived sentimentalists or squanderers of public funds. History itself could be brought into the equation: the report in You Dont Say about a Harlem volunteer schooling project under fire for corruption goes at some length into nineteenth-century diagnoses of the needs of the disadvantageddiagnoses arrived at by the Abolitionists, subsequent critiques of those diagnoses by historians, and tangential matters. The purpose wasnt to evade judgment but to arrive at a judgment that takes account of how each part of a situation plays on every other part.
The same determination not to reducethe same longing to be commensurate with whatever behavior is in viewturns up throughout these pages. A piece about Playboy connects that magazines mocking presentmindedness with the mockery in high culture, over the past century, of traditional values. But the analysis makes room for an account of the differences as well as the similarities between current mockers and their tutors, even for a footnote glance at past opinions from Dr. Johnson to Henry James on marriage and maternal feeling. A piece about new-style, irony-laced contemporary greeting cards spends much of its teasing space on the gap between these dark messages and the gooey American innocence in the greetings with which they compete (Where the Old Greeter meant to represent himself as better than common men, the New Greeter means to be recognized as worse). But before its done, the piece spells out likenesses between these greeters (both are hired stand-ins for the speechless) and traces a line of American inarticulateness from Myles Standishs friend to Joe Christmas, Prufrock, Coolidge, and beyond. A parachutists wordless in-air experience, all action, gets a full page to itself and so, too, does an articulate jumpers attempt to name the pertinent freedoms (You are the master, nothing holds you that comes from anywhere except in yourself). But in time the book side of the aspirations enters, through the interpretive voices of J. S. Mill and Erik Erikson and the poet John Ashbery.
Always the writer is seen lobbying for broader views than those that shape first reactions. Yes, I say in Dirty Words, the theme of Silence as virtue turns up everywhere in twentieth century literature, Conrad to Hemingway, Murdoch to Salinger. And yes, the theme has religious resonance. But can the theme really be understood if its viewed purely as a sacrament, not as a strategya power ploy? Would such a theme have emerged had literacy remained the preserve solely of the empowered? The frustration of the elites in ages of mass literacy is easy to comprehendbut how should it be judged? The essay argues that no exemption religious or aesthetic can be granted to the thesis that language is the enemy of truth; criticism of the thesis based on political and moral standards is wholly appropriate.