In response to “Jacques Barzun and Western Civilization”
http://www.iwf.org/pubs/twq/Fall2000g.shtml

      Barzun is an intellectual and that is clear. He has an extensive
      "outlook" on western history. I refrain from calling it knowledge
      not because he is ignorant (quite the opposite) but rather because
      he portrays history knowingly through 'his' eyes and 'his' mouth
      and is quite confident in doing so. Any man can call him
      knowledgeable and this is fine, but this would not full describe
      him as a historical writer. Barzun is always on solid ground
      though. His mix of opinion and historical context is always
      conveyed clearly and uniformly. This seems to be his style and
      somewhat gives him away as being that "all knowing grandfather." He
      is not arrogant though. By this I mean there is no hostility in his
      words. He says merely what is said and nothing more. He uses
      language as a way of communication and does not dress his sentences
      up in any way. Barzun makes me think of Noam Chomsky in his style
      of writing. Both write to communicate and are clear to the point of
      understanding. However their ideas are completely different. Unlike
      Chomsky, Barzun doesn't entertain abstractness in any form. He
      almost sneers at it. He traces every idea and every thought back to
      reality (or history). This is common throughout his interview.
      Somehow he creates a not so obvious feeling that abstractions lead
      to ignorance. He seems to be of a strict form of "rationale" in
      literature. That may very well explain how he came to be a
      historian instead of a politician or philosopher!

    Barzun takes a classical and romantic approach to women in history
    and the "nature of the woman" in general. He praises women for being
    women. He does not lean towards any certain bias of equality or
    inequality. In fact he refutes all these "biases" and begins anew
    with his own interpretation of a "woman's place in the world." In
    other words, he does not stress equality, but rather the distinctness
    of a woman and the distinctness of a man. He looks at certain women's
    achievements in history and leaves it at that. Barzun is not one to
    draw conclusions on the whole sex because it simply does not make
    sense and is not rational. Barzun seems to state that a woman does
    have a place in the world and so does a man, and that these places
    are independent of each other.

     I do agree very strongly with one of his ideas. The present
     situation in which power is placed within the individual and used
     through the masses or group is leading to much ignorance. He gives
     many examples of this from women's rights groups to schoolchildren.
     He is right in saying that schools are losing significance because
     they are teaching "social welfare of the child" and not simple
     education. However, I disagree with him that this is completely bad.
     More emphasis should be placed on education, however the idea that
     "a school is a second home" is to be shed is not productive in this
     world. Anyhow, as I said earlier he is quite confident of what he is
     saying. Barzun once said, "The new degree of Bachelor of Science
     does not guarantee that the holder knows any science. It does
     guarantee that he does not know any Latin." Whether this shows the
     diversity of our society or its futility is up to ones point of
     view. I would border in-between leaning more on the side of
     diversity. However, how useful that diversity is seems to be a
     better question.

     "When people accept futility and the absurd as normal, the culture
     is decadent." This is the highlight of his book and interview.
     People are infatuated with that which he calls primitivism. Distance
     does lead to enchantment. Everyone is trying to recapture the
     "essentials." Things like anti-art are essentially absurd. Anti-art
     has now been accepted as art and is very much encouraged. This
     highlights the decadence of our society. It seems that people are in
     a state of chaotic confusion. And according to Barzun, it will not
     last. Someone will turn it around sooner or later.
    Barzun looks at history as "repetitive and novel." He analyzes
    everything individually with "self-interrogation." This means that
    everything in history has a unique meaning and is not meaningless. He
    is quite confident that there will be an optimistic "end" to the
    current decadence and that we will find another " America " to drive
    the hopeless into hopeful. This exemplifies the repetitiveness and
    novelty of history that he claims exists. Furthermore, this is a good
    example of a human condition that I believe he has been keenly
    exploring.