Bobos in Paradise
Bobos in Paradise, by David Brooks is a fascinating socio-political-economic look at the upper middle-class American. “Bobos,” or Bohemian Bourgeoisie, are, as their name implies, a compromise - or if you prefer, an oxymoron. They are the combination of the radical hippie culture of the 60’s with the practical bean counter of the 80’s. Brooks recounts the centuries old clash between these heretofore clashing subcultures and how they melded into one over the last 30 years or so.
Brooks goes into a lot of detail not only about the histories of these groups, with lots of references to influential books on subjects ranging from urban planning to professional outlook, but also talks a great deal about more “observational” elements. So we get diatribes on the conversations of Bobos, on their travel, even their wedding announcements. Although a great deal of this is funny, at many points brooks gets a little carried away. After a page or two of tongue-in-cheek recounting of Martha-Steward-esque descriptions of interiors, or of fictional pretentious conversations amongst some Bobos, it can sometimes get to be a bit tiresome.
If one can get past this verbosity, one can come away with a pretty good picture of what a lot of America looks like today. Brooks actually includes himself in the Bobo culture and so a lot of his book, as he himself declares in the introduction, is self-deprecating. He makes fun of Bobo culture to no end, but in the end he is positive about the whole idea of a Bobo, if not proposing some vigilance in not letting this moderation and compromise go to extremes.
I did recognize myself in a lot of the presumed ideology, professional, educational, and consumer preferences that Brooks discusses. In this way it was a bit disquieting, like looking at your skeleton on an X-ray plate. I arrogantly thought sometimes that I was a bit different from many of those around me, that my approach to things was unique, or at least extra-ordinary. But Brooks demonstrates that a lot of my mores, assumptions, and preferences are based on a very widespread societal underpinning. Of course I am not a caricature of a Bobo because I simply don’t have the money to travel around the world and buy expensive outdoor gear, etc. I just wonder if I did have more money would I then be even more like some of the extreme types he waxes on about in his book?
The one personalizing idea that the book left me with was this: for many years now I have been disinterested in politics because of how partisan it can get. I don’t view the world in black and white the way those at the extreme ends of the political spectrum often do. I think there are things that make sense that have been co-opted by “conservatives” or Republicans, and I also think there are things that make sense that are mainstays of “liberal” or Democratic platforms. I dislike picking sides based solely on labels and a strict adherence to a rigid set of ideals. Apparently this is very much a Bobo sentiment. And although I still think restricting yourself to a single party where there is a platform you need to agree with down the line, I also am starting to see that being a pure pragmatist technocrat at every level has it’s limitations. In a way it is more conservative than conservatism itself. It is trying to compromise to such an extent that you do not rock the boat too much for anyone. It means never getting really passionate about a cause, because passion can slip into dogmatic adherence to a belief. This is a very tricky thing for me because I am still trying to figure things out when it comes these types of ideas. Since I was 13, I have geared myself very much towards science. I am not a scientist, but more of a fan of science and the scientific method. But I am also aware of the limitations of science and that the scientific method itself could be described as if not a religion, then at least an ethos by which to guide ones beliefs and thoughts. The only difference between it and unscientific ethos is the idea of experiment and observation. But is what we perceive always “true”? These are much loftier questions than Bobos in Paradise approaches, but it does make one think much more about one’s underlying motivations, assumptions, and overall way of thinking.
As usual, I listened to this book via Audible.com and the author narrated it. He narrates well and has a New-York/Jewish tonality to his voice sometimes, although I have no idea if he is indeed Jewish or from New York, but since I am both, it at least seemed somewhat familiar. Having the author read his own work is usually preferable to someone else, unless that person is a great orator or actor. I think of all the books I’ve listened to most of the ones that were read by the authors themselves were outstanding whereas if someone else read them, the narration was usually very good but not always.