Open a newspaper, turn on your television or walk into a
bookstore and there is a high chance you’ll encounter Alain
de Botton: a modern philosopher who uses modern methods to bring
philosophy to a wide audience. One aspect he is particularly
interested in is how philosophy can help us examine and improve
our daily lives, as he makes clear in his bestsellers,
Consolations of Philosophy and his latest book, Status Anxiety. I
meet him in the Authors’ Green Room at the Oxford Union,
which is hosting several events in the Oxford Literary Festival,
after a talk about status to a room of eager literati; he is
happy to expound on his new book, his own status and just why
academic philosophers are jealous of him. Does he worry about rivals, a concern which Status Anxiety
addresses? “I think it’s a completely normal and
natural and universal concern to have, and unfortunately it
doesn’t matter how much you have, you always look at people
just above you. So when I started writing, if someone said
you’re going to have a book in the best-seller list, I would
have thought that’s amazing and I would give my right arm
for that. But when you get it and you think why isn’t it in
a bit longer, why hasn’t it sold as much as Lynne Truss,
those are the impulses, so it’s very, very pernicious.
We’re inherently ungrateful for what happens to us.” Status Anxiety recommends worrying about death as a way of
realising our true status – in effect, that we’re
actually a lot better off than we think. Surely this is just a
way of kidding ourselves, though, since it will make us
complacent and unambitious? De Botton agrees that the middle way
is probably best: “There’s no doubt that if you have no
concern about your status that would be very worrying. I think,
like many things it’s somewhere in the middle –
it’s an appetite – we have an appetite for status like
we have an appetite for food: too much and you gorge yourself and
you die of obesity, too little and you starve.” De Botton is very much a respected presence in the media and
his books attract excellent reviews, which should together give a
sense of security and happiness, so does he worry about his
status? What does he think constitutes his status? “[Writers
can] wonder about the intrinsic value, not just the commercial
value, the artistic value [of their work]. It’s another way
of trying to make sense of your worth. I don’t think I am an
exception – some days writers will go, ‘I got a really
bad review but I’m selling lots’ or, ‘I’m not
selling lots but I got a really good review’.” We move
on to his multimedia presence. De Botton seems u n u s u a l a m
o n g s t philosophers in that he is willing to spread his ideas
in ways other than through dusty, dry academic journals and
great, indigestible tracts which sit, unread, in the Bod (as
academic philosophers’ works are commonly perceived). In an effort to educate and inform, de Botton has taken his
message onto the television ( Status Anxiety and The Consolations
of Philosophy were adapted for Channel 4; How Proust Can Change
Your Lifefor BBC2). Does he think he’s like Socrates,
spreading the philosophical message to the public at large?
“I don’t want to compare myself to Socrates. I suppose
I’m unafraid to take calculated risks with such things as
the Richard & Judyshow, a Channel 4 documentary or whatever,
because I think that there are many ways of getting a message
across. The mass media isn’t stupid, it’s just what
might be on it that’s stupid. I don’t see a conflict
between trying to write seriously about serious themes and going
on television.” So do full–time academic philosophers treat him and those
like him, such as historians David Starkey and Simon Schama (who
both have had several television series), badly? “Oh yes,
you’re absolutely ridiculed. As soon as you, you know, go on
television, and you might be earning three times what
they’ve earned that year in a month, let’s say, you
instantly become very annoying indeed to them, but that’s
their problem. You know, your mother’s going to be delighted
with your success but you can’t expect everyone else to be
delighted.” What about the accusation that de Botton et al
over-simplify their subject and patronise their audience? Does he
think this is a result of jealousy and fear? “To be honest,
yes, I do actually. You know, most people don’t know about
British history or about the history of philosophy or whatever
– how’s one supposed to know? I think it’s a
tremendously patronising accusation ultimately under the guise of
being a helpful and serious accusation – it’s actually
the most pernicious accusation of all – I mean, Simon Schama
is a wounded man, his reputation in the academy is totally
destroyed for no good reason.” De Botton appears angry not on his behalf – he seems able
to hold his own corner – but on behalf of his colleagues who
have succumbed to academic back-biting. It’s one thing to
have a programme about philosophy on television, but it’s
another for this programme to have an effect. In today’s
world of auction shows, home-decorating channels and wall-to-wall
reality TV, does he think he has an influence on people’s
lives? “It’s hard to know. I made two series for
Channel 4, I remember after I did [ The Consolations of
Philosophy] one, the essays of Montaigne [featured in the show]
went to number two on Amazon and that hasn’t happened for a
long while. That’s quite fun. That’s, I think, an
achievement. If I’ve made some kind of contribution, however
modest, I think my life hasn’t been completely wasted. I
think one has to remain intrinsically modest about how anyone can
affect anyone, how a book can affect anyone. On a bad day I think
none of it does anything at all.” Can television handle philosophy, which is popularly seen as
either arcane or impossibly difficult? “ Status Anxietyon
Channel 4 is basically an illustrated lecture with examples you
have to compress. You have to whiz through it, throw out a few
ideas. It’s an error if you think that’s all there is
to say about a subject.” While we’re on the topic on
television philosophy, I have one final question I’ve been
dying to ask: Sex and the City – modern feminine philosophy
or glam-TV? De Botton, if he’s surprised by the query,
doesn’t show it, or at least recovers quickly. “I think
it’s an ideological portrait of modern Manhattan womanhood
filled with messages about what’s good and bad. We tend to
measure ourselves according to models we’ve seen on TV and
no doubt it has led some people to evaluate themselves according
to that idea.ARCHIVE: 0th week TT 2004
Scraping De Botton of the Barrel
