When Historians Become History: A Review of Richard Hofstadter: An Intellectual Biography

It was a few months ago that I picked up David S. Brown's Richard Hofstadter: An Intellectual Biography at Borders. I have to admit that I bought the book more out of a sense of obligation than a sense of anticipation. I have never been a big fan of biography, intellectual or otherwise. But I knew that Hofstadter had thrown a giant shadow over twentieth-century historiography. Few historians in those hundred years could claim to have the influence that Hofstadter did. Plus, I had read several of Hofstadter's works and thoroughly enjoyed them. The liberalism that Hofstadter championed was not the liberalism that I was familiar with. It seemed to have more charm. Its prose was certainly more engaging. So, I decided to pick up Brown's book figuring I would eventually slog through it.

Well, there was no slogging with this book. Brown has written an engaging history, one every bit as well-written as those penned by Hofstadter himself. Brown finds several factors that contributed to the direction and power of Hofstadter's work. One, was Hofstadter's ethnic origins. Being of Jewish descent, Hofstadter stood out in what still remained a largely WASP profession. It was amazing to read that even into the 50's Jews were being turned down for history jobs at prestigious universities because of their ethnic heritage. Hofstadter's Jewish roots put him outside of the historical mainstream and allowed him to come at historical questions from unique angles. That is not to say that Hofstadter always benefited from the perspectives of his Judaism. Hofstadter was sometimes given to exaggerating the anti-Semitism of certain groups and movements. His charge that Populists were particularly anti-Semitic especially fails to hold up under scrutiny. But that really does not detract from the perspective his ethnic heritage provided.

Another factor that shaped Hofstadter's thought was a deep distrust of democracy. Having lived through both the fascist regimes of World War II and the witch hunting of the McCarthy era, Hofstadter became very distrustful of popular culture and political power. This led to the harsh criticism of Populism and Progressivism that characterized much of his work. While Progressive historians had virtually lionized the working class, Hofstadter was very distrustful. His desire was to restore the intellectual to positions of power in politics and culture. Interestingly, Hofstadter eschewed political assignments and positions far more than many of his contemporaries. But this does not belie the fact that Hofstadter remain distrustful of power in the hands of the lower classes. This distrust did not last for Hofstadter's entire life. After the thorough rejection of Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential race, Hofstadter came to believe that the masses were not entirely gullible. In Hofstadter's estimation, Goldwater's loss by a wide margin proved that the working classes could sometimes use power wisely.

A final factor that shaped Hofstadter's work was his use of social scientific methods and his subsequent penchant for psychological, non-rational explanation of historical behavior. Rejecting the economic rationalism of the Progressive school, Hofstadter looked for more psychologically based explanations for human action. Thus, Hofstadter became known for phrases like "the paranoid style." Since Hofstadter rarely did archival work, relying instead on published sources, it is his use of social scientific methods that was his enduring legacy. It was this turn that inspired a generation of scholars that followed.

Brown has the right mix of admiration and criticism in his book. He recognizes what made Hofstadter great, while also fairly elucidating his failures. To me, the story of Hofstadter presents a path not taken in the story of liberalism. Though Hofstadter was liberal, he was very distrustful of the extreme left. His very brief experience in the Communist party made him see little difference between extreme left and right. Modern liberalism could use some of Hofstadter's distrust for extremes on both sides of the political spectrum.

In short, Brown's book is one of the best history books I have read in a long time. I look forward to his next book on the historiographical school that came out of the University of Wisconsin in the early part of the 20th century.