Hirchfield doesn't like the concept of 'culture.' As in "you and I come from different cultures." He attacks it from two angles one stronger than the other.
The weaker angle is the broader deconstrcutionist project anthropology has waged against the concept since the 1980s. Most cultural groupings are fluid, imaginary, etc. etc. My response to this type of argument amounts to this: so what?
o I am a sucker for "Great Books" reading lists. About once a year I check the two St. Johns' reading lists to see what is part of their current canon.
Reading it this year has prompted a question.
I notice that these lists crawl slowly forward through time. The general rule seems to be not to add anything less than 80 years old. They end with Wittgenstein and Heidegger (the '30s).
Say you had to push the lists forward 40 y. What "great thinkers" would need to be added?
My take is that you'd need to add four things (categories really).
The first would be one of the great writers to confront Totalitarianism at its full tide. Arendt, Levi, Grossman, solzhenitsyn, Havel, or what have you. Choose whoever best fits the book schedule, I suppose.
I have a few thoughts on this. I'll suggest that there is more that separates reporters from the great mass of humanity than the money their parents make. Class, yes. But class is more than just money.
What follows applies not just to journos--think tank world is very [1/x]