Jonathan Krohn, 14, has written a book. It is 86 pages long. It is entitled Define Conservatism. LOL@ his age, his prepubescent voice, his home-schooling, the fact that he plays golf. Etc.
More interesting: the book's title. There is something about it that stands out. On the one hand, it has the naive, overly-literal simplicitly of a 14 year old who wrote a book: i.e., his book is an attempt to "define conservatism," which he claims has been bastardized into a political stance as opposed to a philosophy (? I think this is what he is saying, dunno tho). Thus, we might argue that he titled his book to straightforwardly reflect his aims.
On the other hand, there is something of a conscious aesthetic choice. "Define Conservatism" has something of the ironic over-simplification, the post-double-entendre, about it.
This reminds one of the cover of a K. Anthony Appiah book, or perhaps:
Or:
One almost has the sense that Krohn is playing with our preconceptions; the title acts as an ironic gesture that anticipates objections based on his young age. I know you think I'm young, that I speak in declarative sentences and ask my parents the meaning of various common words. But in fact, it is you who is woefully ignorant: you who lambaste conservatism (that's you Barack - the "most radically leftist president in my lifetime!") don't even know what it means! Just as "Gay Ideas" - which evokes both a naive intellectualism (I'm gay, and these are my ideas), a naive homophobia (what a gay idea!), and a reappropriation of that homophobia - makes a highly self-aware aesthetic gesture that supersedes its supposedly straightforward denotative meaning, "Define Conservatism" seems to hint at a sophisticated grasp of the aesthetic possibilities of language - and perhaps the creation of an entirely new politics based on the endless play of signification. Look 4ward 2 seeing more!
Posts
