
Back cover photo from Confessions of a Young Philosopher
by Abigail L. Rosenthal
What is desire? It’s what gives direction to our lives – on the organic and also conscious levels. If we lack purpose, our animate existence loses the sense that it is going somewhere. The consequences can be life-threatening. In personal cases I’ve met, directionlessness shows up as a crisis.
Some years back, I wrote a philosophical article bearing the title, “The Intelligibility of History,” which widens the same point so that it can be tracked in the cultures in which human beings live and in human history more generally. Here’s an excerpt from that article.
“What finally is culture? Culture can be deemed a collective passion. If a nexus of desired relations (biological, practical, creedal, poetic, legal, institutional, military) is held together … at a certain limit by a certain “range of knowable options,” those who think this limit to be unsurpassable have it in common as their collective passion.” …Cultures set boundaries for individuals and the boundaries are not so ineffable that the individual who transgresses them will not be promptly so informed.”
“History is an inquiry. If the inquiry is successful, the historian will have a tale to tell, the tale told by the transition from one collective passion to another, or from one phase to another of the same collective passion.”
Although these pronouncements are excerpts from a philosophical article, I cite them here shorn of their justifying arguments. That said, I believe it will be handy to bear these concepts in mind – culture as the shared or collective passion that draws boundaries around what its individual members feel entitled to desire – before I proceed to lay out my present concern.
*. *. *
In 1999, Wendy Shalit, then a young college graduate, wrote a book, A Return to Modesty, whose very title prompted an outpouring of ridicule and condemnation that was instant and widespread. She was caricatured in respected venues like the NY Times Book Review, The Nation, the NY Observer and so on as a pitiable poster child for the very repression and sexual hangups that liberated women were way above and beyond.
At the same time, as Shalit reports in the Preface to her present edition, messages of another kind – hundreds of appreciative letters from women and men of college age – were also arriving in her mailbox. She has kept those letters. And meanwhile, despite all the condemnations from voices on the cutting edge, Modesty began to have cultural impact. It was reflected in new types of clothing which trend-conscious manufacturers began making available – more modest swim suits and everyday wear that looked more subdued and lady-like.
Meanwhile, time passed, experiences piled up, the culture underwent some changes in its shared sensibility – fashions in feeling were changing – till finally saying “no” started to get a more sympathetic press.
So, do we have a happy ending for Shalit’s innovation in sensibility? Not quite. In her school days, her parents had stepped in to get her excused from the new sex education. However, the girls whose parents had not been alert enough to rescue them from the coed sex education class hours, were finding themselves jeered at by the boys, groped and even targeted for group assaults! Interestingly, Shalit, who’d spent the sex ed hours in the library, continued to be treated by the boys as she had been before.
Her female classmates who went on to college would find themselves expected to take male roommates and to say “yes” to sex without commitment. With such experiences and expectations, they would prove far less self-protective than Shalit. Her new Preface reports that “sex education” – in the same factual, counter-erotic, auto-mechanic style – has now widened in its scope, going as far down as kindergarten and first grade. At certain points in her account, I had to stop reading. It was too horrifying.
So what’s it all about, really? What’s driving this (actually desire-killing) education? Young men are backing into porn-addiction. Young women are suppressing their need for ideality, as they ricochet between mortification and the blunting of their feminine sensibility. Among shamed girls, suicides are increasing.
Is there a hidden agenda driving all this? If there is, I’m not privy to the backrooms where it’s being devised. But I can look at the results and read those back into the agenda. What are the results?
- Desire loses its vector – its directional character.
- One has trouble remembering what it was that one personally wanted.
- Directionless, one can more readily be had for the taking.
If you no longer know what you want, you’ll be more easily subject to what others want of you. That’s not how a free human being operates. It’s not how a free society survives.
If, as I’ve argued in The Intelligibility of History, culture is a way of organizing desire, and history may be understood as a movement from one form of desire-thus-organized to the next, then what the so-called “sex education” of the young amount to is this:
the inversion of culture –
and the emptying out
of meaningful human history.
Related Content: Confessions of a Young Philosopher | The Intelligibility of History










