David Brooks is a New York Times columnist, and boy does he know how to write 750 words that will rocket to the top of his paper's most-e-mailed list. Here's his basic recipe. First, pick a topic in the sociology realm, preferably something sort of vague, with Malcolm-Gladwell-ish overtones (or, better yet, apply explanatory social science to some newsy situation). Second, boil down complicated ideas until you're left with the thickest residue; deglaze it with short, choppy, declarative, simple-to-read sentences. And third, throw a curveball?e.g., ?The Stay Puft Marshmallow Man is not evil because he was possessed, but was possessed because of his mind's unconscious desires. He was, in short, evil all along.??that will convince readers of the column's ?thoughtfulness? regardless of whether the premises and conclusions happen to be ridiculous. Finally, if time allows, create a catchy, book-jacket-ready description for whatever situation or entity you've described (the ?Stay Puft Stupefaction??).
Brooks is at it again today with ?Amy Chua is a Wimp.? Amy Chua, as everyone is aware, is the insane Chinese woman who calls her children garbage but who is actually, you know, sort of conflicted about the whole abusive tendency thing and who hopes that her deranged ranting will [adopt sober, contemplative?tone here] spark a productive debate about parenting strategies and international competitiveness and U.S. education and how much money she is going to make when everyone buys her book. (Why are we talking about this again?) Brooks has a book coming out. He wants it to sell well, too. So he has decided to jump aboard the Chua ?controversy? (it's sociology!) by interpreting it through the subject he so loves, the topic of his arriving-in-March-don't-miss-it hardcover: the unconscious mind.
Amy Chua's parenting strategies are wrong, sure, but they're not wrong for the reasons you think they're wrong. I bet that you, dear reader, also believe that Amy Chua is really tough. But not only is she not tough?she's a wimp! (My, how thoughtful, how original!) And why are her strategies wrong? Why is she a wimp? Because in trying to challenge her children intellectually she's actually ?coddling? them. ?She's protecting them from the most intellectually demanding activities because she doesn't understand what's cognitively difficult and what isn't.? And what is cognitively difficult? Sleepovers!
Practicing a piece of music for four hours requires focused attention, but it is nowhere near as cognitively demanding as a sleepover with 14-year-old girls. Managing status rivalries, negotiating group dynamics, understanding social norms, navigating the distinction between self and group ? these and other social tests impose cognitive demands that blow away any intense tutoring session or a class at Yale.
Wow! Those sentences seem so stupid, so inane that they must actually be . . . incredibly keen. Yale does suck, and sleepovers are really, really hard. Brooks has done it again! We want more! Let's buy his book!
Everyone, it seems, wanted to argue last week about Amy Chua's piece in the Wall Street Journal. Today everyone wants to argue about David Brooks's piece in the Times. The only argument should be over how absurd one?must make his or her newspaper articles to guarantee his or her book a spot on?the bestseller lists.
?Liam Julian, Bernard Lee Schwartz Policy Fellow