As The D pointed out yesterday, the Phrygian Society takes its name from a "cap that was worn by the Phrygian people and has featured prominently in world culture ever since. Emancipated Roman slaves wore the Phrygian cap as an indication of their liberty. For a time, the cap was also worn in theater by any character who served as a 'man of the people.' According to the Revolutions de Paris, a chronicle printed during the French Revolution, the cap was 'the symbol of the liberation from all 
servitudes, the sign for unification of all the enemies of despotism.'"To the upper left, you will see one of the French caps, while below that you can see a more Roman-era cap. To the upper right is the seal of the United States Army, which contains an image of the cap on a pole.
Of course, as noble as that all is, the most famous wearers of the Phrygian cap are the Smurfs (to the right). It's also a deformity of the gallbladder, which I find somehow appropriate for a society predicated on the idea that Dartmouth was a lot better off before there were women and people of color here.
At any rate, here's to the Smurfs!
Seal, You are just jealous you dont' wear one of those sweet hats.
ReplyDeleteyeah, that's exactly it. you figured it out. i am just angry they didn't pick me for their little treehouse club.
ReplyDeletePapa Smurf's decision to wear the Phrygian cap is fraught with irony. If I recall correctly, he was more than 500 years old, had a very pleasant disposition, and was exceedingly wise. Wisdom is perhaps consistent with the ideals of the Phrygian Society.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, though, I don't think Papa Smurf ran Smurf Village as a democracy. His word was law, and he was to be obeyed. The Belgian animator Peyo discreetly did not show how Papa Smurf enforced his wishes, though it is implied that he did so through persuasion rather than force. Unclear if that makes him a despot or not. As Malchow's document says, "the gravest threat I see is the king."
Lest there be any doubt whether Papa Smurf is consistent with the Phrygian society, though, recall that he presided over a village of 100 men and one woman (all of whom also wore the Phrygian cap) out in the middle of the woods. While each of the men had a name to indicate his trade or distinguishing characteristic (Hefty, Handy, Brainy, etc.), the woman's name was merely "Smurfette." Also, their common cause was fear of Gargamel and his cat. Gargamel is "the king" to be feared, not Papa Smurf.
In light of this, I have to conclude that Papa Smurf sealed the deal when the society was picking its name.
I'm not sure about the gall bladder thing, but perhaps some knowledgable pre-med can enlighten us on that.
Thanks for the analysis.
ReplyDeletePapa Smurf makes me nostalgic.
ReplyDeleteThe Phrygian hat is just further proof that the smurfs are a communist conspiracy.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Smurfs_and_communism
But why would the Phyrgians want to be like the Smurfs? Don't they love the free market?
ReplyDeleteThe only thing they have in common I guess is the sort of de facto asexuality
Do you have ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that the Phrygians believe that "Dartmouth was a lot better off before there were women and people of color here," or is your remark purely an example of prejudice?
ReplyDeleteAnecdotally? Sure. But I don't see the point in storytelling.
ReplyDeleteSigned? Sealed? Delivered? In triplicate, with photo documentation? Well, no.
How about an anecdote or two? How about anything? A couple of anecdotes don't make a conclusion, do they? Any racist can give you anecdotes about black folks. Any anti-Semite can give you anecdotes about Jews. You published a post last year asking your readers for evidence of the "traditionalists'" discriminatory beliefs and you got none...... Why stick with your unsupported conclusion?
ReplyDeleteWhat the fuck else could they possibly want? Less research? You don't have to put together a secret society to get at that shit.
ReplyDeleteGo search the D for Larry Morse '56's Op-Ed last spring- that's just about what we're rockin with here.
Some of the anecdotes I don't feel comfortable sharing because I don't think they were related to me for the purpose of dissemination.
ReplyDeleteBut actually, I do have harder evidence. Look in Rauner, at The D archives. Look up Rodgers and Robinson. Rodgers authored a "girls stay the fuck out of my Dartmouth" op-ed and Robinson spoke out against the Equal Rights Amendment. While Rodgers now kinda sorta admits women might be able to go to Dartmouth if they're really good, that doesn't mean he doesn't pine (pun intended, thank you) for the days when they weren't allowed. And Robinson? I've never heard that he's changed his tune on the equal rights amendment, so what am I to suppose about his views on minority access to privileged institutions? I shouldn't have to explain to you that if the Phrygians are supporters of Zywicki (from the picture) and Smith, then they're also hot for TJ and Peter.
Then you've got the entire fucking Review archives which, if you're Joe Rago (and I hope you are) or (if you're not) have any recollection of your time at Dartmouth, you might remember isn't too sweet on women and minorities. The position of Review editor is apparently an ex officio member of the Phrygians now, and I think it's a reasonable assumption to attribute some variation of their feelings to the Smurf philosophy. Not to every member, sure (as I've pointed out here and again here at more length) but to the general philosophy of the group.
But let's dissect this a step further. The statement to which you object does not actually attribute to the Smurfs a belief in a causal link between the presence of women and minorities and what they see as the decline of Dartmouth. What it does attribute is a belief that Dartmouth was at its best in a period which happened to be free of women and relatively free of minorities. If the dominant view among the Smurfs and their alumni supporters is that Dartmouth has been at its best since 1972 and particularly under Jim Wright's tenure, when the number of women and minority students has greatly increased, I'll gladly apologize. If not, my statement stands as perfectly justified.
I don't get it - I'm a campus conservative, but I don't want to return to the days when Dartmouth was all-male and primarily white. I'm a minority myself, and I love this school. The fact that I'm pro-Greek, against alcohol policies, and believe in COS reform so that individuals accused of various acts can have representation certainly doesn't mean I'm all for taking Dartmouth back a century. I happen to be a political conservative too, but you still can't essentialize me: I'm pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. I'm a firm supporter of the Review (especially in light of the shitty writing in The D and the DFP), but that doesn't say a damn thing about my politics. How, then, can you possibly make these sweeping assumptions about this group of individuals?
ReplyDeleteYou might try, for a change, to actually understand the modern intellectual conservative movement and try not to demonize it. Many of us who consider ourselves conservatives are secular (or outright atheists), believe firmly in individual rights, and believe that the government has no right to stop two (or more) consenting adults from entering into a contractual agreement of any sort - regardless of who the parties are, regardless of what the contract entails. The movement isn't about being white, rich and heterosexual. It's about believing in limited government, rule of law, reason, capitalism, and individualism. Professor Hart, the figurehead of the Review, put it best when he argued that the problem with the modern conservative movement is that it has decided to forsake Edmund Burke in favor of George Bush; that control of the movement has shifted from the intellectual, aristocratic Northeast to the populist, religious South ("aristocrat" being used here to mean "rule of the best" and not the popular interpretation as "rule of the rich"). Does it shock to you hear that many conservatives (including many writers of The Review) are anti-Bush?
I personally make it a point to religious read every issue of both The DFP and The Review cover to cover (and I read The D as often as possible). It's funny how that difference plays out - most of my conservative friends (once again, conservative in the modern, intellectual sense) also make it a point to go out of their way to read the DFP, for the very fact that it's an opposing viewpoint. How many of your lefist friends, particularly your fellow DFP writers, read The Review? You might want to try it sometime - it might surprise you.
In reading the DFP, I've read your work quite a lot. I'm convinced that you're a really smart guy, despite the fact that I disagree on you. So why is it, then, that you insist on playing the role of political pawn? Do you feel obliged to support the left on face without bothering to critically evaluate the positions it takes? Or is it just that you've realized that it's a really safe and easy way for you to gain popularity and social capital on this campus by unequivocally lambasting conservatives of any stripe? It's funny, because one of the posts on your blog is about Ann Coulter. I despise this woman; I'm not suggesting that you're anything like her, either. You're not stupid, bigoted, or, to be fair, masculine enough to be Ann Coulter - but please realize that your divisive politics and your desire to caricature all points of view that differ from yours as stupid and unreasonable certainly has many parallels to other opportunistic political pundits. Ask yourself if you really want to be a part of that club - I'm certain that you're not as stupid as the Coulter, Limbaugh, Franken bunch, but I'm quickly losing faith.
I appreciate your points, but I think you'll find that I generally engage with genuinely well-thought out and carefully articulated conservative arguments with the same kind of thought and consideration. For legitimately silly things like a society that names itself after a symbol of slaves revolting or Joe Malchow's blog, I turn on the snark. I admit some of my editorials in the DFP have taken some cheap and really unwarranted shots at the frats, but I think my record is fairly clean when I'm dealing with an actual argument.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, compare my response to Dan's editorial in the Indian cover issue and my response to the cover itself. The cover (and I think even Dan would admit this) didn't deserve critical engagement of any sort. Dan's editorial did, and I gave it, pretty straightforwardly, I think. I admit I don't always keep the sarcasm out of serious discussions, but I think I do a better job than you're giving me credit for. I think the Phrygian Society as an entity is a joke, and I'm treating it as such. I think the concept of a secret elite squad of mostly conservative men doing battle with the evil forces of King James Wright is absurd. If you disagree, I'd love to hear your reasoning, but you'd have to prove why it has to be secret, why it has to be all-male, and why the slave-revolt name is necessary.
But more to the point, I have engaged with the modern intellectual conservative movement specifically in the form of Jeffrey Hart, and I don't see much substance. That's not to say that I don't think you have substance but rather that I think Hart's claims to intellectual conservatism are really split down the middle—there is his claim to intellectualism, which is really a claim to intellectual elitism, and there is his claim to conservatism, which is really a claim to traditionalism. He tries to bridge the two by invoking traditional concepts of truth against the specter of relativism, which he sees alive in both the liberal intellectuals and the conservative fundamentalists with the former's emphasis on relative values and the latter's emphasis on relative truth (particularly with regard to science). However, I disagree with Professor Hart on two counts—that this traditional view of truth entails both his elitism and his other forms of traditionalism and that the traditional view of truth is particularly "conservative." Relativism is not liberalism and liberalism is not relativism, but Professor Hart wants to assume that is so—that is, unless he wants to critique a religious fundamentalist.
Anyway, I want to stress that I'm not imputing his problems to you, but that I am perfectly aware of the modern intellectual conservative movement. I haven't read Oakeshott, but I have talked with one of his biographers. I've read—and enjoyed—Trilling and Bloom (Allan, not Harold). My thesis is on Saul Bellow. I am not light on my knowledge of intellectual conservatives of the past half-century.
In addition, I am more than happy to continue this discussion—here, on the blog, or in person, if you're around Dartmouth. Seriously, as you can tell, I like talking, I like talking about ideas, and I do make an effort to understand conservatism. I read The Review (except the sports section). I often critique The Review chapter and verse on this blog. I'm not in any way ignorant of or adverse to the idea of intellectual conservatives.
Meanwhile, as we wait out our time with this president, we can look forward to the latest in a stream of rhetoric that increasingly makes Woodrow Wilson look like Machiavelli. “One, I believe there’s an Almighty,” Bush declared this April, “and secondly I believe one of the great gifts of the Almighty is the desire in everybody’s soul, regardless of what you look like or where you live to be free. I believe liberty is universal.”
ReplyDeleteWell, it is certainly taking a long time for the plans of the Almighty to show results in the actual world. As I write this, sectarian violence in Iraq is escalating. I’d call my skepticism “conservative,” but Bushism has poisoned the very word.
--Jeffrey Hart, in the Washington Monthly
One could infer from this that Hart has jumped ship and no longer considers himself conservative.
"I'm not in any way ignorant of or adverse to the idea of intellectual conservatives."
ReplyDeleteThen why the tireless attempt to debase this Phrygian group?
Aside from an apparently ongoing feud with Eastman and this Malchow character (and a modicum of street cred with the underclassman left) I see no reason for your quest to illegitimize what seems to be a conservative niche to complement your liberal one. Also, I thought you said in your first posting on the subject that they were not all conservatives?
You have had some strong pieces in the past, please do not allow your position to devolve to that of the pundit that repulses you so. And I back Saul Bellow, strongly. What is your thesis on?
I wouldn't call three posts (arguably four) "tireless."
ReplyDeleteThe D story is more than a little hilarious.