Having shown the wrong that was committed (the destruction of a classless culture in America), and the causes (a hierarchical, money-conscious elite that sought to divide itself from the riff-raff), Levine is free to assess the damages:

If there is tragedy in this development, it is not only that millions of Americans were now separated from exposure to such creators as Shakespeare, Beethoven, and Verdi, whom they had enjoyed in various formats for much of the 19th century, but also that the rigid cultural categories, once they were in place, made it so difficult for so long for so many to understand the value and importance of the popular art forms that were all around them.

It is similar to the argument for free trade: once barriers to exchange go up, everyone loses. Some never experience Beethoven, some never experience Charlie Chaplin--and whether you think the trade-off is even or not, it's hard to see what's good about having any creative work rendered off-limits.

YET it is when Levine discusses in his epilogue the modern dilemma of stratified culture that he appears least historical and seems to be writing off-the-cuff. (Although a majority of the work was delivered by Levine at Harvard in his 1986 Massey Lectures in the History of American Civilization, the rest of Highbrow/Lowbrow nonetheless adheres to a bookish, historical style.) In the epilogue, which includes the umpteenth rebuttal to the moral philosopher Allan Bloom, Levine effectively calls for an appreciation of all cultures.

But in his hope for finding a growing re-acceptance of "popular" culture--the underlying purpose of these histories which look back to a brief American utopia--Levine overstates his case. For example, he explicitly praises the New York Times for its Sunday "Arts and Leisure" section's broad definition of "art," failing to recognize the subtle discrimination that goes on in those pages. Namely, that rock, jazz and "popular" music are written about in the "Recordings" page, while "classical" music appears under the simple heading "Music." This is but one example of how cultural distincitons still exist, and Levine fails to hold his own on the familiar turf of the 1980s cultural landscape.

Not only does the brief 13-page epilogue not meet the historical standards Levine presents in the rest of the book, it leaves the reader with an uneasy feeling that the whole historical excursion has been designed to encourage you to feel greater cultural tolerance. No doubt this is a worthy goal. But it seems Levine is on firmer ground when he presents the details of an integrated culture, and the ugly process whereby culture was used to divide people. When he presumes to discuss our current cultural problems, his approach seems as flawed as reading a book through the lens of a telescope.