What do you think?
Rate this book
Irving Howe: Socialist, Critic, Jew
" . . . scrupulous, fair-minded and richly-detailed study . . . the book charts one of the most remarkable intellectual careers of the 20th century's latter half. . . . What is most heartening about Mr. Alexander's biography is its exemplary civility and nuance in discussing ideas across the lines of political difference." ―Nathan Glick, Washington Times
"Anyone interested in Howe's varied career, and the historical context that has given it its particular shape―American radicalism, the Cold War and anticommunism, the New Left, literary modernism, Jewish life―will profit handsomely from reading Alexander's respectful book." ―Wilson Quarterly
"Edward Alexander's captivating study of Irving Howe is illuminating and
scrupulous; it is also temperate, generous, and deeply fair-minded. If
Howe were alive, he would thank the author―and even now, in Paradise, he
is surely doing so (while hotly continuing the discussion)." ―Cynthia Ozick
" . . . a singular achievement." ―Jerusalem Post
" . . . a masterpiece" ―National Jewish Post and Opinion
". . . meticulous scholarship, felicitous writing style and a literate feistiness." ―Chicago Jewish Star
"An excellent work of insight and criticism, recommended for academic libraries." ―Library Journal
"An insightful, balanced contribution . . ." ―Booklist
"Edward Alexander's estimable intellectual biography . . . studiously avoids both undue sentimentality and overly harsh censure." ―Sanford Pinsker, Philadelphia Inquirer
"Edward Alexander's well-informed and engaging portrait of Irving Howe does full justice to the complexities of mind and the political passions of one of this country's leading intellectuals. This bracing, perceptive study honors Howe's admirable career by treating it with the same high degree of moral seriousness that characterized Howe's own work at its best." ―Alvin H. Rosenfeld
Irving Howe, author of World of Our Fathers, the prize-winning history of American Jewish immigrant culture, and founding editor of the influential magazine Dissent, was for over 50 years a dominant―and controversial―figure in American intellectual life. Through a clear and eloquent study of Howe's politics, writings, and thought, Edward Alexander constructs a sympathetic yet critical intellectual biography of this complex individual.
"Anyone interested in Howe's varied career, and the historical context that has given it its particular shape―American radicalism, the Cold War and anticommunism, the New Left, literary modernism, Jewish life―will profit handsomely from reading Alexander's respectful book." ―Wilson Quarterly
"Edward Alexander's captivating study of Irving Howe is illuminating and
scrupulous; it is also temperate, generous, and deeply fair-minded. If
Howe were alive, he would thank the author―and even now, in Paradise, he
is surely doing so (while hotly continuing the discussion)." ―Cynthia Ozick
" . . . a singular achievement." ―Jerusalem Post
" . . . a masterpiece" ―National Jewish Post and Opinion
". . . meticulous scholarship, felicitous writing style and a literate feistiness." ―Chicago Jewish Star
"An excellent work of insight and criticism, recommended for academic libraries." ―Library Journal
"An insightful, balanced contribution . . ." ―Booklist
"Edward Alexander's estimable intellectual biography . . . studiously avoids both undue sentimentality and overly harsh censure." ―Sanford Pinsker, Philadelphia Inquirer
"Edward Alexander's well-informed and engaging portrait of Irving Howe does full justice to the complexities of mind and the political passions of one of this country's leading intellectuals. This bracing, perceptive study honors Howe's admirable career by treating it with the same high degree of moral seriousness that characterized Howe's own work at its best." ―Alvin H. Rosenfeld
Irving Howe, author of World of Our Fathers, the prize-winning history of American Jewish immigrant culture, and founding editor of the influential magazine Dissent, was for over 50 years a dominant―and controversial―figure in American intellectual life. Through a clear and eloquent study of Howe's politics, writings, and thought, Edward Alexander constructs a sympathetic yet critical intellectual biography of this complex individual.
304 pages, Hardcover
First published April 1, 1998
11 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
May 12, 2013
Reading Scialabba really turned me on to reading figures of the Old Left for the first time. So I decided to buy this intellectual biography of Irving Howe when I stumbled across it in the sale section of Powell’s. Despite the author’s questionable integrity to discuss Howe’s position on Israel and Palestine, the book was a good introduction to Howe’s life and evolving ideas, as well as some of the thematic concerns of the Old Left generally, including the tensions between literary criticism and political criticism.
Howe’s grappling with this tension was the most valuable theme for me. In a true public intellectual spirit, Howe’s “political commitment was qualified by numerous new interests, especially literary ones, that led him to ‘that taste for complication which is necessarily a threat to the political mind’” (26). (the internal quote is from Howe’s autobiography, A Margin of Hope).
Howe’s appreciation for complication put him against simpleminded Stalinists and Trotskyists alike who adhered to stringent attitudes towards art: “Howe says that he does not object to revolutionary politicians discussing literature. But he does demand that they know something about it and not simply make raids into literature in order to condemn an author’s politics. ‘For the Marxist method is no substitute for intelligence and knowledge.’ Marxism can do no more than ‘help explain’ the link between a work of art and its social milieu, but ‘since it is a theory of historical analysis and social action rather than literary criticism, it contributes little to an evaluation of a work of art’” (27).
Similarly, a former student remembers Howe repeating the argument “‘that a writer’s politics, however important to understand, could not finally dictate the worth or power of his story’” (77).
This message is liberating to readers, allowing them to maintain a commitment to a particular political ideology and appreciate merits of art that falls outside of that ideology. This position is also hopeful, reaffirming “the value of literature in its own right as well as its ability to confront, if not master, even the horror and incoherence of this most terrible of centuries…” (223).
The other important theme is Howe’s exemplary democratic socialism that resisted capitalism to his right and authoritarian socialism to his left. This dual resistance, along with his willingness to support reform campaigns within a liberal democratic framework—the opposite of the revolutionary positioning of elements of the New Left--forms much of the drama of his life and writing.
Alexander’s writing is pretty clunky and boring, and the book feels over-organized—Howe’s life and ideas are separated into the distinct sections dealing with Howe’s socialism, literary criticism, and Jewish literary concerns. A more traditional biographical approach would have been more rewarding. Alexander’s approach is largely descriptive, and even when there is analysis, it doesn’t quite build towards any central arguments, which is ultimately unsatisfying.
Whenever Alexander touches on the topic of Howe’s sympathy for the Palestinian cause, he becomes uncharacteristically hostile. Indeed, no other part of the book feels the same as Alexander’s passing treatment of this subject. It is so overwrought by his apparent own belief on this subject, that one senses that he has a lapse in critical capacity. In fact, Alexander abandons his discussion of Howe’s ideas altogether and goes on a tangent of his own opinion, savagely laying into Arabs inside and outside of Palestine. If that weren’t enough, he makes a sweeping claim without offering evidence: “The Arabs, on the contrary, showed not the slightest interest in helping their brethren in Palestine through philanthropy in the Arab ‘diaspora’ [Alexander clearly doesn’t recognize Palestine, and therefore, chooses to use quotation marks to speak of any Palestinian diaspora]. Instead, they invested their money in propaganda to blacken the image of Israel and to insure that Arab refugees remained refugees and politically valuable” (211).
Another example: Noam Chomsky appears on only one page of this book. During Alexander’s discussion of Howe’s commentary on Chomsky, Alexander refers to “Chomsky’s pathological hatred of Israel.” Alexander is clearly entering editorializing territory. Though Chomsky only appears on this page, Alexander lists him in the index as “Chomsky, Noam: Hatred of Israel, 141.” Contrast this with the entry for Travers Clement, who also only appears on one page: “Clement, Travers, 92.” Or “Cohen, Elliot, 94.” Etc.
Alexander steps out of his otherwise civil and academic tone again when he writes that, in light of Howe’s “clear-sighted independent intelligence” in his literary criticism, his writing on Israel is “mind-boggling” (211).
Not surprisingly, I’m not the only reader who picked up on this. When Googling more information about the author (I didn’t find much), I came across a Kirkus Reviews piece that shared my reaction:
“Unfortunately, Alexander's analysis of Howe's political views too often is tendentious or otherwise rhetorically overcharged. Alexander praises Howe’s Jewish commitments…. But when it comes to Howe's writings on Israel, particularly his pro-Peace Now pieces from 1979 until his death, Alexander waxes hysterical. He makes the untenable charge that Howe became involved in ‘anti-Israeli American Jewish politics'—untenable unless all critiques of Israeli policies are deemed ‘anti-Israeli.’'' (https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-re...)
Frankly, Alexander’s editorializing about Israel and Palestine is distasteful and embarrassing and calls into question his integrity on commenting on other aspects of Howe’s work. I hope to read A Margin of Hope and perhaps other books on Howe to gain a more well-rounded understanding of this important man.
Howe’s grappling with this tension was the most valuable theme for me. In a true public intellectual spirit, Howe’s “political commitment was qualified by numerous new interests, especially literary ones, that led him to ‘that taste for complication which is necessarily a threat to the political mind’” (26). (the internal quote is from Howe’s autobiography, A Margin of Hope).
Howe’s appreciation for complication put him against simpleminded Stalinists and Trotskyists alike who adhered to stringent attitudes towards art: “Howe says that he does not object to revolutionary politicians discussing literature. But he does demand that they know something about it and not simply make raids into literature in order to condemn an author’s politics. ‘For the Marxist method is no substitute for intelligence and knowledge.’ Marxism can do no more than ‘help explain’ the link between a work of art and its social milieu, but ‘since it is a theory of historical analysis and social action rather than literary criticism, it contributes little to an evaluation of a work of art’” (27).
Similarly, a former student remembers Howe repeating the argument “‘that a writer’s politics, however important to understand, could not finally dictate the worth or power of his story’” (77).
This message is liberating to readers, allowing them to maintain a commitment to a particular political ideology and appreciate merits of art that falls outside of that ideology. This position is also hopeful, reaffirming “the value of literature in its own right as well as its ability to confront, if not master, even the horror and incoherence of this most terrible of centuries…” (223).
The other important theme is Howe’s exemplary democratic socialism that resisted capitalism to his right and authoritarian socialism to his left. This dual resistance, along with his willingness to support reform campaigns within a liberal democratic framework—the opposite of the revolutionary positioning of elements of the New Left--forms much of the drama of his life and writing.
Alexander’s writing is pretty clunky and boring, and the book feels over-organized—Howe’s life and ideas are separated into the distinct sections dealing with Howe’s socialism, literary criticism, and Jewish literary concerns. A more traditional biographical approach would have been more rewarding. Alexander’s approach is largely descriptive, and even when there is analysis, it doesn’t quite build towards any central arguments, which is ultimately unsatisfying.
Whenever Alexander touches on the topic of Howe’s sympathy for the Palestinian cause, he becomes uncharacteristically hostile. Indeed, no other part of the book feels the same as Alexander’s passing treatment of this subject. It is so overwrought by his apparent own belief on this subject, that one senses that he has a lapse in critical capacity. In fact, Alexander abandons his discussion of Howe’s ideas altogether and goes on a tangent of his own opinion, savagely laying into Arabs inside and outside of Palestine. If that weren’t enough, he makes a sweeping claim without offering evidence: “The Arabs, on the contrary, showed not the slightest interest in helping their brethren in Palestine through philanthropy in the Arab ‘diaspora’ [Alexander clearly doesn’t recognize Palestine, and therefore, chooses to use quotation marks to speak of any Palestinian diaspora]. Instead, they invested their money in propaganda to blacken the image of Israel and to insure that Arab refugees remained refugees and politically valuable” (211).
Another example: Noam Chomsky appears on only one page of this book. During Alexander’s discussion of Howe’s commentary on Chomsky, Alexander refers to “Chomsky’s pathological hatred of Israel.” Alexander is clearly entering editorializing territory. Though Chomsky only appears on this page, Alexander lists him in the index as “Chomsky, Noam: Hatred of Israel, 141.” Contrast this with the entry for Travers Clement, who also only appears on one page: “Clement, Travers, 92.” Or “Cohen, Elliot, 94.” Etc.
Alexander steps out of his otherwise civil and academic tone again when he writes that, in light of Howe’s “clear-sighted independent intelligence” in his literary criticism, his writing on Israel is “mind-boggling” (211).
Not surprisingly, I’m not the only reader who picked up on this. When Googling more information about the author (I didn’t find much), I came across a Kirkus Reviews piece that shared my reaction:
“Unfortunately, Alexander's analysis of Howe's political views too often is tendentious or otherwise rhetorically overcharged. Alexander praises Howe’s Jewish commitments…. But when it comes to Howe's writings on Israel, particularly his pro-Peace Now pieces from 1979 until his death, Alexander waxes hysterical. He makes the untenable charge that Howe became involved in ‘anti-Israeli American Jewish politics'—untenable unless all critiques of Israeli policies are deemed ‘anti-Israeli.’'' (https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-re...)
Frankly, Alexander’s editorializing about Israel and Palestine is distasteful and embarrassing and calls into question his integrity on commenting on other aspects of Howe’s work. I hope to read A Margin of Hope and perhaps other books on Howe to gain a more well-rounded understanding of this important man.
Displaying 1 of 1 review