Home
Process
Prices
Get a Discount
About Our Service
Guarantees
Free Essays
FAQ
Contact Us
Free The Closing of the American Mind Essay Sample
Social movements have deep roots in the United States of America. The purpose of formation stems from the need to achieve specific goals, especially those that concern the daily lives of the citizens. The movements may be analyzed based on the timing of their formation, and the purpose which they are meant to accomplish. They have been known to either propel the societies forward or, on the other hand, bring about chaos and undue unrest in the society. The criticism of such movements is done very often by various scholars so as to understand the results of those movements. The effect of social movements is concentrated mostly on the social sectors. The sectors are affected mainly because they concern a large number of people, and the social movements may want to address the plight of their well-being. In the sixties social movements were formed to address concerns raised in the education sector, among other sectors. Education is known everywhere with the emphasis made on giving quality education to the students. Social movements may affect this, depending on the activities they engage in. Particularly, the feminism movement in the sixties contributed more to the closing of the American mind, according to Bloom, and based on arguments made by other people he references in his book, The closing of the American mind.
Constitutional amendments in the sixties endorsed the rights of women (Bloom, 1987). The capacity to achieve and fight for the rights of women was greatly enhanced. This meant accessibility of the facilities and opportunities that were once set aside for men. It also meant that women had the rights to form their own groups and movements. According to Allan Bloom, feminist movement started taking shape in the 1960’s. The impact on education was felt by everyone. He accounts for a period where women literally took over the learning institutions, as they were backed up by the women advocating for equality in the learning institutions. They were actively involved in developing curriculum and teaching their liberal ideas to the students.
The history of women and their oppression, for example, was overly emphasized. The lesson would be dominated with stories such as slavery of the girl child in the previous years, at the expense of other important parts of the history. In English as a subject, women were able to eliminate the domination of men in the society. The language, prior to this movement, reflected a society that was largely dominated by men, making it almost impossible for women to be used as a subject of referencing. The women deliberately pushed their agenda into the minds of the young people (Bloom, 1987). This gave a chance for fear and intimidation to penetrate into the minds of the young men in the audience. Music composition also tended to be in favor of women. Every beat reflected the value of giving a chance to women to express who they are and the values that they stood for.
Allan Bloom accounts the sixties as a period where women brainwashed students with feminist ideas in their teachings. Every teaching had to be oriented towards sexism. He criticized the writings of the sixties as those that lost their quality and meaning as they tried to add sexism into them. The women who had faced injustices in the classical times would have first to understand the meaning of some of the texts before making changes and conclusions. The meaning was completely destroyed, and yet passed on to the minds of the young people.
Bloom came out strongly against the idea that the rights of women were more vital than reading quality and good books (Bloom, 1987). The books could not merely be banned because they did not advocate for the rights of women. They had good content, which gave a good foundation for the students in the future. To uphold such values is what gave the students the right to be called elite. Affirmative action was so prevalent, to the point where elitism was associated with it. The universities endorsed any group that came strongly to support such actions, if only they could gain support from the general public (Bloom, 1987).Men, on the other hand, were losing their significance. The role played by men was not unique anymore (Bloom, 1987). They would die young and saw their confidence slowly but surely fade away. Men were ill favored as compared to women, which exposed them to danger. For example, they would be asked to go out for war and would be seen as criminals even before the due process was carried out to confirm this. Still, Bloom pointed out that men were expected to remain strong even in the middle of crisis. This meant that they could not be expected to express certain emotions, like crying and wailing, when hurt. This stereotypical approach did not do any good to the men in the sixties.
By and by, he watched changes in the society; women were literally taking over in life. He watched as the education system declined. The values so vital in life were compromised so as to give way for democracy. This catalyzed the collapse of the education system. Achievement of equality would have incorporated men’s concerns. The feminist movement advocated for equality, yet they themselves were biased. They failed to recognize the need to empower men and bring about a balanced society. Men had been brainwashed to shy away from challenges and opportunities denied to them. The movement did not dare to allocate the same amount of effort towards ensuring a just society. Their way of defining justice excluded men in every possible way. It is such kind of an environment that men were being exposed to from the young to the old.
Liberalism brought about an era where the roles were no longer defined (Bloom, 1987). The worst thing about it, according to Allan Bloom, was the whole idea of neutralism. The people would no longer say that this and that role is carried out by men or women. It left these things to be interpreted depending on an individual. This lack of clear cut ideas was something Allan Bloom condemned. At least in the past, the roles and values were clearly defined. Nothing had been left void, ensuring that the totality of human growth was achieved. The political atmosphere of the day favored development and growth of feminist movement. Their cry was heard, even when their concerns were irrational and inconsiderate. The women’s activities were also given a lot of exposure by the media. This reinforced their efforts and made the movement take strong roots in the society (Bloom, 1987).The feminist movements would not compromise on anything unless their demands were met. The bid to be liberal, free and empowered would be achieved any way. It did not matter what would be passed on to the students. In such an era, women needed democracy; and they got it somehow. The end result was a feminist approach to almost everything. The desire to be a real man did not look as attractive. To assert oneself as a man was seen as a wrong. Every man had to consider equality and democracy before taking on any activity. According to Allan Bloom, feminism movements brought about terror. He did not see a place of rescue. His career looked threatened, and so was the education system. Women were going to intoxicate the system with their feminist ideas. The decline of open minds, as far as he was concerned, was expected. If no stern measures were taken, the future of the system would never be assured.
In the end, Allan Bloom points out for the need to go back to the roots (Bloom, 1987). The students are finally realizing that they are no longer marketable in the job arena. They are victims of a system that crippled their very capacity to get good jobs. They are supposed to ensure that they can fit in any sector of the economy, yet the system denied them that chance. In the decades past, everyone is yearning for a sane system. The void left must be filled, even though it would be hard to reverse the situation as it was before the sixties. He proposes that the education system must constructively include all the subjects that were removed during the sixties. Inclusion of some of the key elements advocated for by the ancient philosophers and professors would go a long way in ensuring that education is given the quality it deserves. The need to ensure that there is a definitive development of curriculum is of great importance (Bloom, 1987). The sixties did not define anything; rather, everybody filled the void with whatever they willed. Today, things such as specialization must be endorsed. When any individual graduates from the university, they should be ready to define who they are and what exactly they have been trained to do. Politics and democracy should only be allowed to prevail if they are meant for the common good of the citizens. Any political alignment that denies students a chance to become elite is not good for them. The failure of the sixties should be something to learn from. When students decide that other agendas are of more importance than the training they ought to receive, then they deny themselves the chance to become elite.
Liberal education must be shunned (Bloom, 1987). The content that it eliminates is the very reason for an open mind. The solutions that the society looked for, some too complex, only arrived at through some of the elements the system eliminated. To carefully include them into the system would be the only solution to the needy society. This is the kind of situation that the entire country had turned to. There was a lot of desire for knowledge and balance in the society, but the approach overlooked the desirable logic that was required to put everything in place in enlightening the American people. According to West (2007), such a scenario is what prompts Bloom to profess the closing of the American mind. Apparently, there was no room to effectively bring out the desired change in the American society.
With such revolutions and movements, Bloom highlights a period which apparently was characterized by the inability to adjust to a new era. His book portrays rigidity to opening up the American mind. The social movements largely affected the enlightenment of the American people in many sectors of the economy. The education system, for example, was not able to bring about extensive enlightenment. Although racial discrimination of the students was gone away, largely due to the activities of such people in the sixties, there was a lot to be desired in the larger picture of America. The same issues have in a way contributed to the challenges faced in opening up the American mind. In the recent decade, the education system has been of a great national debate. People of today are moving towards ensuring that they are able to receive quality education and not merely pass time in the universities. Specialization and precision are common terms as demanded for in the market place. Allan Bloom, therefore, stands out as a great writer with a great ideas to refer to in case we want to make achievements in the educational field.
The American system of education has been subjected to political policies, some working for the benefit of the students, while some watering down the very purpose of education. Concerns are raised on whether the minds of the students will receive the very best. The sociologists and psychologists are concerned that maybe we have adopted policies that will in the end deny us the chance to get quality as far as education is concerned. To get to the root, constitution is deeply analyzed, starting from the past days to the current date, so as to try and understand why, if at all, students do not get what is ideal. The policies made by the government of any given country may work for or against the education system
One of the psychologists, Allan Bloom, gave a complete analysis of the situation. He was student of Socrates and other Greek philosophers. He was, therefore, able to observe changes occurred in the education system and point at exactly where the root of the problem was. In his book, The closing of the American mind, Bloom gets into the depth of the whole matter, and in particular considering the social movements in the sixties. He is generally opposed to the social movements of that era, terming them as such which brought about decline of the education system. The decline in the quality of education that is observed today in America, he explains, is as a result of the deeds of social movement’s activities in the sixties. This can be understood as what could be termed as the closing of the American mind (West, 2007).
Allan Bloom gives a complete analysis of the American system of education in relation to politics and social movements. He compares times before the sixties and the changes that took place during that period of time. He explains years before the sixties as years of high motivation, inspiration and focus. The students in such a time were ready to scale any heights and become the very best years past their education training. In such days, he explains, the choice of subjects was carefully done, if only to bring minds that were ready to embrace the future. Then the change came, and the sixties brought about a whole different scenario. This he analyzed in the chapter named the sixties.
Most of the chapters in his book point towards the sixties. The thoughts are aligned towards this particular period, and as such, it stands out as the beginning of all troubles as far as education system is concerned. The closure of the American mind, according to West (2007), is best analyzed from the sixties. Some of the key philosophers had made important contribution before that period. These individuals gave a strong foundation to the writings of Allan Bloom. They mainly concentrated on defining what knowledge was and would be expected of the elite. They all agree to one fact; it was vital to be precise. They gave clear cut definitions on what science is and how it should be passed on to the students, so that he or she gains the best out of life. Some of the philosophers that Bloom referred to were Socrates, Alexis De Tocqueville, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Bloom refers toAlexis De Tocqueville in an effort of defining democracy. The interpretation of democracy, according to Tocqueville, is one that in the end leads to enhancement of the mind of an individual. However, most students interpreted freedom and democracy different (West, 2007). He called this modern democracy, which would do anything to cripple the minds of the Americans. The best kind of freedom would be that which promoted the well-being of the community without having to take away the right to reason. The mind of an American was the most affected thing in the modern democracy that prevailed in the sixties.
Socrates taught on the need to ask questions, the need to gain knowledge with precision. Failure to do this will result in that the goal to which one would want to achieve in education would be unattainable. He advocated for testing of everything learned in life. Ultimately, the knowledge we attain must be reasonable. The sixties did not provide such kind of a system. The power of reasoning was done away with, leading to the closure of the minds of the young people in the learning institutions. Socrates also criticizes every person that wastes time defining what is right or wrong without taking stern measures to perform the very deed (West, 2007). Such was the approach in the sixties. The students spent all their time in riots rather than on the performance of the very virtues that they advocated for. This consequently amounted in the closure of the American mind.
Socrates emphasizes on the need to have one’s own mind. The human nature is such that they want to take over and exercise authority. When this very right is taken away from a person, then it becomes hard for them to live in harmony. He makes an observation that the real problem is not on expressing ones mind, but rather finding it. He points out that there is a need to go back to such a point. On the other hand, Rousseau had pointed out that freedom is more important in anyone’s life (West, 2007). Natural science denies students the right to exercise their own freedom. It is only in practical science that freedom is exercised. A student must be ready to apply reason in their enlightenment path so that freedom is exercised. In applying theory to practice, a human mind is able to open up, and the individual becomes more productive. This was not the case during the feminist movement in the sixties leading to the closure of the American mind.
Every society needs to be guided by moral values (Bloom, 1987). To bring doubt into what is always known as the right thing is like bring intimidation to the very custodians of such values. The sixties, according to Allan Bloom, was such an era. He observed riots; politics that were meant to intimidate and bring down the values of the American system. There came a period when nobody was convinced about what was right and what was wrong. Students in the universities all over America, indulged into politics that did not define the moral values of the people. The riots would sometimes end with intimidation of their professors. Even the very lives of the professors could not be protected. The professors would then rise with apologies, calming down the students with words of defeat, and very ready to compromise the very goals that defined their institutions.
When students observe weaknesses in adults, they will quickly take an advantage. Soon enough, the adults will be subject to the manipulation of the students (Bloom, 1987). The students observed that the teachers did not have their own stand. To read other peoples work, motivate students, and then later acknowledge that it was not the professor’s original thoughts, made it easy for the students to manipulate them. The freedom to use ones thoughts and mind was seen unnecessary. The professors could waiver from their original decision and focus if any chance presented itself. They did this as students observed them. Nothing could be worse than this.
Movements were formed to protect individual group’s rights (Bloom, 1987). For example, the blacks had their own movement. Their representation in the university was good, and nothing could alter their belief system. The very morals that governed the universities could quickly be manipulated to protect such movements. If for one, a student raised concerns that they had faced injustices as they went about schooling, the administration would not act on it. This was mainly because violating the individual group’s rights would bring in trouble to the system. The administration would, therefore, act in fear, shrugging their shoulders that they could do nothing about the situation. The hopes would be that the students would somehow find a way to go about the situation; that maybe they would receive justice from them.
Several attempts by the blacks to cause riots within the campus were seen now and then (Bloom, 1987). Their bid to achieve equality would not be compromised. They would take control over the running of the institutions, causing fear and commotion in the administration system. The administrators in the effort to avoid trouble, allowed them to get their rights, even if they were asking for compromised quality of education (West, 2007). These students were armed, some carrying guns and such like weapons. If one opposed them, then they would be killed or hurt badly. No administrator would allow this to happen to them. They had to comply, or let the students do that which they wished to do.
The support from the political arena of such groups did not do any good to the system. The professors feared for their lives (Bloom, 1987). In case they ruled against some of the groups, the political figures of the day would come strongly in opposition. The option then was to observe from their comfort zones. If asked to give a judgment, they would quickly refer the victims to the leaders of the students in such groups. This is how easily students ruled, bringing politics into the universities, and getting radical about every problem that they encountered blocking any possibility of opening up the American mind. Amidst all of this, the professors did not want to be seen as failures (Bloom, 1987). They would quickly defend themselves as custodians of civilization, maybe in the bid to protect their names. However, everyone could see that the system had failed. The individual’s freedom must be ready to give way for the rest of the population to experience theirs also, which was not the case in the sixties. The system exalted the freedoms of the students way too high that anything else. Worse still, the law did not seem to protect the professors.
If a professor got hurt, something they would do anything to avoid, the authorities would intervene, but only within certain limits (Bloom, 1987). They did not have the capacity to bring back the order since the very poison came from the system itself. It seemed that this is something they all agreed to have. To violate it was of serious consequences, to the extent that they rather remained in their poor state than ask for help. The authorities were called upon to respect the academic freedoms endorsed by the system. The end result of such a system was that the education curriculum was affected (Bloom, 1987). The elite could no longer express the educational ideas with authority. Their views and expertise was subject to manipulation. They had to carefully sieve what they taught; it landed them on the wrong side of the university politics. Allan Bloom in his analysis is pessimistic stating that nothing good came out of that system. Speaking of the good things perceived to come from the sixties, he says, the overall picture was that the students never got what was intended from the universities. The positives included lack of rigidity, in that the system was able to deal with bureaucracy and monotony. The other aspect was that of freedom; freedom to express the views of the students without intimidation.
Reforms in the education system closed the minds of the Americans in the sixties (Bloom, 1987; West, 2007). The curriculum was subject to changes. The system dropped subjects that seemed to bore students, yet very essential. According to Allan Bloom, who sat in various committees to give opinion on what exactly to include in the system, the students would in the end lack the very essentials of education. He agreed that the topics were not interesting, but if one had to say they were educated, then some of these topics were must haves. At least, their replacement was called for; if at all their exclusion was necessary. Knowledge, according to Allan, has to unite (Bloom, 1987). He advocates for a system that considers a careful selection of topics in the curriculum. Relevance is vital, such that the students can align personal goals with those provided in the education. However, the sixties were a complete show down. The professors would do anything to please the students. This was at the expense of their future. The students dictated what they willed, and the professors met their demands.
According to Allan Bloom, the reforms had no content (Bloom, 1987). Their only reason was to level down what was seen as the extreme, and in the end brings about a safe environment for all people concerned. The inherited values from their colonial masters, Europeans, were quickly done away with and a new system was adopted. This is where the American education system collapsed. To date, many people still feel the void that was left in the sixties. The political class may well succeed to bring about reforms that may bring the system back to the basics, but after a lot of effort. The rich literature, philosophy and history that were once abandoned, will have been achieved, if at all they will, with a lot of struggle. The very extremes and peaks that were abandoned brought about a lot of benefits (West, 2007). The students, before the reforms in the sixties, were taught how to have confidence and of self awareness.
Our features
300 words per page instead of 280
Free revision (on demand)
Discount system
Affiliate program
VIP services
Round-the-clock support
Several myths tried to explain the reasons why the students were able to riot and bring the learning institutions into confusion (Bloom, 1987). The theories compare the periods before the sixties. One of the theories, as recorded by Allan Bloom, suggests that in the fifties, the students were able to conform to the intellectual disciplines. The attempts to do away with the disciplines that formed the values of the institutions were minimal. On the other hand, the sixties were characterized with excitement and readiness to question the authorities. The answers given to the questions were dogmatic. The other myth given is that most of the professors in the fifties were able to exercise freedom to think (Bloom, 1987). This meant that they could come up with ideas and project them in their teaching without fear or intimidation. This was informed by the teachings of various scholars, key among them being Bacon, Milton and Stuart. However, a certain proportion of the professors remained, who in every way would not surrender their personal interests and exercise freedom of thought. By conforming to the will of others, West (2007) also confirms that they would gain from it. As such, they remained opposed to the former. With the sixties, the first group weakened. The group unwilling to exercise freedom of thought dominated, giving the reason for the collapse of the system.
The other myth was that the morality of the students was different in the period before the sixties and in the actual period. The students, according to Allan Bloom, did not have clear guidelines on the values that needed to be upheld for the institutions to remain sane. A whole set of rules emerged, making it hard to retain the same morality as it had been in the periods before. Morality in the sixties was defined by what was gainful to the students; that which could be done without causing pain in the end. The freedom in academic field, fixing of the inequalities and gaining democracy, came before upholding of morals (West, 2007). You would get away with anything, so long as you were exercising your freedom.
Democracy in the sixties was one subject that kept sparking controversies in this era (Bloom, 1987). The rule of many gave ground for proud and selfish people to flourish. This era brought about oppression in the name of democracy. Democracy in the previous years had been very influential. Even the young were given the chance to remain significant and access justice. This was done without having to disregard others or to bring confidence to a point of weakness. The whole idea of equality in such ancient days may not have been brought into light, yet democracy had been more powerful. Reinforced by modern philosophy and Christianity, inequalities continued to prevail.
Liberal education was misunderstood in this period (Bloom, 1987). The lectures thought that by teaching little bits of everything, the students would finally get to choose exactly what they wanted. None of the lecturers were ready to specialize on a specific subject. They taught everything, leaving gaps that would remain as so even upon graduation of the students. The students were left with questions on how exactly to define everything. The lecturers were able to justify their approach towards education. They argued that it was wrong to impose certain things to a student. The student had to be allowed to develop and make his/her own choices when time came. Allan Bloom did not then see the need for universities. If they had nothing to stand for, then their essence was automatically eliminated (West, 2007). Somehow, Bloom did not see the need to have such kind of education. It only made the wrong get fertile grounds of growth. The very need to link choices and consequences, if done away with, would help students and other people get away with anything (Bloom, 1987).
The lectures taught this kind of education so as to gain recognition and to ensure that they were well perceived (Bloom, 1987). To avoid being criticized and to be called names by the students, they had to present a certain kind of education. Liberal education was able to include both, those who were ill-trained and well-trained. It would have been hard to differentiate between these two parties to be called professionals. It is a system that gave the administration of the elite schools the chance to evade from questions that would demand clear cut answers. They were able to avoid being brought into accountability for their actions by encouraging such kind of a system
To the outside world, the picture portrayed was that of excellence in the elite institutions. The administration was able to ensure that they were seen on the forefront of advocating for quality education (Bloom, 1987). They were able to fool everyone by ensuring that they gained a good name from the students and the professors. Only a person with a critical eye would observe and see the decline of the education system (Bloom, 1987). Only a few people saw the mind of the American student experience closure through taking such wrong measures. The system of education in the sixties was so much dedicated to removing all the essential elements that made education worth while. The agenda was only to allow politics and liberalism to prevail in the institution. A good name was far much better than opening the minds of the students (Bloom, 1987). Whatever was standing out as a barrier would quickly face opposition and, finally, removal from the system.
The choice of subjects by the students and the emphasis laid on the most vital courses was poorly done. The learning institutions were not able to bring cohesion between the social sciences and the natural sciences upon the completion of their studies. They would not be able to define anything with precision, and what had seemed obvious was not so in this period (Bloom, 1987). The content was not important in this period, and it did not matter what intellectual gain one would achieve. What mattered was that one passed through school and had some papers to prove it. All this emanated from the feminist movements and it appeared to influence the American mind in a somewhat negative way (West, 2007).
The students in the sixties graduated with voids in their souls (Bloom, 1987). The search for jobs would land them to less prestigious areas. Yet, the universities were honored. They were looked upon with pride and a sense of belonging to those who did not have a place to pride upon. The doctors and the lawyers would be seen out in the open advocating for the rights of the minority. For years, their focus was mainly on how well they were able to see people receive justice. Years later, they had wasted all their time in such activities, instead of concentrating on their studies. Their courses had been more demanding than what they engaged in, yet they seemed to reverse their priorities.
The press would give a lot of attention to the democratic students (Bloom, 1987). They would actually find themselves in the cover of newspapers and magazines, many times making headlines. The students had a lot of political influence within and outside the universities. The politics of the day, as run by the students, were merely meant for self gain. Considering how hard it was, and is still is, to gain recognition from the Americans, the students rioted even more. They would use others to gain their political agendas, if only to get noticed and respected by the outside world. In some instances, the third world countries would fall for their prey. This is because they had no power to question the deeds of such students. They interpreted their deeds as moves of compassion (West, 2007). They adored the glory that came with their deeds, at the expense of achieving quality knowledge.
Allan Bloom points out that being called elite is something that is earned after a lot of effort and hard work. However, the students earned this title without having to work for it. The journey towards such an academic achievement was made so easy, something the students would not easily let go. It was an era that paved way for achievement of such prestigious title through affirmative action. The changes that were desired in the American society took socialist movements that went on closing the minds of the American people. Bloom was a student of the ancient Greek philosophers and his knowledge on the society and its establishment conflicted with happenings in the sixties, as he writes in this chapter. Supported by the teachings of Socrates, he does not find logic in the process of change that was taken up by the feminist movements.
Allan Bloom recalls a period of chaos in the university that he had lectured for a certain period. Thee students brought the institution to a stand still (Bloom, 1987). This followed the teachings made by the professors on a certain book that touched on Glaucon and Socrates. They wanted to use this book to gain revolution within the university. The situation called for attention from the media, who made such a deal from printing the story. Revolution did not come by, but attention was gained, something the students craved for. The impact of the sixties is still felt today in America. The system of education was interfered with, and the damage has not been reversed to date (Bloom, 1987). To the people who participated in the riots, West (2007) agrees to the opinion that they were uncalled for. Still, they feel that they significantly changed the picture of student democracy. They attach such great importance to the equality that they advocated for, and, in particular, between black and white people.
The closure of the American mind was reinforced by the activities of the social movements (Bloom, 1987). Allan Bloom points out that the experience only proved that the ancient system of education would be something to admire and emulate. To question and remove the very foundations of the education system would only bring fatal consequences to the generation that does so. The replacement of values, morals and ethics of the education system brought about injustice to the Americans. The philosophers and the professors in the past had engaged in careful development of education system (West, 2007). The students of such eras, therefore, reaped the benefits, and their minds were opened. The students in the sixties, on the other hand, made several steps backwards.
In conclusion, ‘the sixties’ is a period in history that turned out to be a major concern for the American country. The reforms advocated for had a lot of effects on the mind of the Americans. All the same, the feminist movements produced more than was anticipated. The capacity to reason and become productive in the society was interfered with by the reforms that the students advocated for, as was prompted through the feminist revolutions. Allan Bloom comes out as a writer with a great concern for the achievement of the very best in education today. He is able to point out exactly what went wrong in the sixties and the way forward. The American mind really suffered; the period challenged the positive assertions made by such philosophers like Socrates, Rousseau and Alexis De Tocqueville. These philosophers clearly defined what would amount to the opening up of a people’s mind in the society. The feminist movements actually promoted the opposite of the earlier proposed philosophies in opening up the society like the American mind.
The movements in the sixties did not bring in the very best to the system. The riots actually worked against the minds of the young people in the university and the society at large. To open up the American mind, order was needed in the society. Things fell apart and the American mind was affected negatively. Such movements caused much havoc, in particular politically. All this was ignited by the feminist movement. Assertion and democracy seemed to be selfish overriding the very common good of the citizens. The waves of equality and neutrality compromised the essentials of enlightening the American mind. Indeed, the chapter on the sixties and the entire book by Allan Bloom is an eye opener for the American society of today. This is mainly because feminism movement in the sixties contributed a lot in closing the American mind, according to Allan Boom and based on Socrates, Rousseau and Tocqueville among other philosophers, as he has referenced in his book, The Closing of the American mind.
