USA Africa Dialogue Series - Wamba On 'intellectuals': Shivji, Eagleton (on Said), Petras

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Nestor Bazunini <kintinu@hotmail.com>
To: chambi chachage <chambi78@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 5:59 AM
Subject: RE: On 'intellectuals': Shivji, Eagleton (on Said), Petras

Thanks Chambi.
I guess each person has his or her list of intellectuals.
Right now, it seems to me that African intellectuals must be rooted in ancient KMT civilization.
In my list, Kwei Armah would figure and Theophile Obenga.
Ernest
 

---

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 02:50:51 -0800
From: chambi78@yahoo.com
Subject: On 'intellectuals': Shivji, Eagleton (on Said), Petras
To: wanazuoni@yahoogroups.com

On 20 November 2013 16:47, Patrick Bond <pbond@mail.ngo.za> wrote:

(Of these very critical pieces, Petras' may shock the most: "In sharp contrast to the above-mentioned intellectual postures, there are the irreverent intellectuals, irreverent toward academic protocols and unimpressed by the prestigious titles and prizes. On the other hand, they are respectful of the militants on the front lines of anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist struggles. They are steady and productive in their intellectual work, which is in large part motivated by the big questions facing movement struggles. They are anti-heroes whose work is respected by the people who are actively working for a basic social transformation. They are objectively partisan and partisanly objective. They discuss and listen to the pessimists and other intellectuals, despite their titles and pretense, to see if they have anything worthwhile to say. For the irreverent and committed intellectuals, prestige and recognition comes from activists and movements and intellectuals who are involved in popular struggles. They work with those intellectuals and activists. They conduct research looking for original sources of data. They create their own indicators and concepts to identify the real depths of poverty, exploitation and exclusion. They recognize that the prestigious awards and prizes are part of the system sustaining bourgeois hegemony. They recognize that there are a few intellectuals in prestigious institutions and award recipients who are clearly committed to popular struggles and they acknowledge that these exceptions should be noted, while recognizing the many, in climbing the ladder, that succumb to the blandishments of bourgeois certification. Most of all, the irreverent intellectuals fight against bourgeois hegemony within the Left by integrating their writing and teaching with practice, avoiding divided loyalties.")

Social justice calls for new thinking

15 Nov 2013 00:00 Louise Ferreira

A new kind of intellectual needs to join the ranks of those fighting for economic emancipation, writes Louise Ferreira.

In a country – and on a continent – where the people are fed up with poverty and poor service delivery, their anger constantly spilling over into violent protest, the first thought might not be to send the intellectuals to the barricades.

But, argues Issa Shivji, that is exactly where they need to go.

Shivji, a leading academic, prolific writer and activist, who is vacating the Mwalimu Julius Nyerere chair at the University of Dar es Salaam in Tanzania, does not use the term intellectual in the popular sense, which is "one of elitism; people who work with brains and are fascinated by ideas, fancy words, most of the time incomprehensible".

Instead, he prefers the description of the American Marxist economist Paul Baran: "He is committed to advance human society, to make it better, rational and work towards a social order that is both humane and fulfilling. In short, he is a progressive individual and ruthless and fearless critic of the status quo."

Last month, Shivji was the speaker at a seminar , "Reviving African intellectualism in the context of neoliberalism", organised by the educational nongovernmental organisation Khanya College as part of the Jozi Book Fair. He spoke via Skype.

Shivji, described by participant Eddie Webster as "one of Africa's greatest leftist intellectuals", began by identifying three generations of "committed African intellectuals".

The first, he says, is the nationalist generation around the time of African independence and national liberation, including Tanzania's first president Nyerere and his Ghanaian counterpart, Kwame Nkrumah. Inspired by Pan-Africanism, their goal was to "get out of the humiliation and indignity of being ruled by a foreign power".

Shivji himself is part of the second generation, who came of age politically in the post-independence period in the late 1960s, "matured and nurtured in the time of the civil rights movement in the US, the Vietnam War, Cuban revolution, student movements in Europe and African liberation wars".

"They were mostly university intelligentsia, involved in student politics and expounding various forms of socialism and radical leftist ideologies," he says.

But they were alienated from the masses, underestimating the force of nationalism and wanting to make a leap to social emancipation.

The third generation, and here Shivji's tone becomes heated, is the group who emerged during neoliberalism, the conservative economic policy adopted by British prime minister Margaret Thatcher in 1979 and US president Ronald Reagan in 1980.

"Africa came under a vicious ideological onslaught. Economies were devastated with structural adjustment programmes wiping out the gains of the nationalist period, however limited … Exploiters became development partners."

We need to take stock of the past 50 years of independence, says Shivji.

"We need to be able to combine national liberation and social emancipation. What is the 'nation' in national liberation? I would submit it is the African Nation, the whole continent as its geographical space."

Webster, also an activist, a Univer­sity of the Witwatersrand academic and director of the Chris Hani Institute, does look the kindly professor with his grey hair and slightly loose-fitting suit. But he speaks with energy, his shirt sleeves rolled up and one finger jabbing the air.

What he likes about Shivji's argument, he says, is its optimism. "It's the idea that there could be a revival of the left in this state of cynicism – the trendy cynicism of the ex-left.

"We have seen, in recent years, the emergence in South Africa of what could be called post-power radicals, highly principled anti-apartheid leaders who have served in government, who are now deeply critical of the way our government has embraced key tenets of neoliberalism," Webster says.

An audience member asks about the role of the university. "Now that we have full-scale corporatisation of the universities, their intellectualism has become commodified."

The corporatisation of universities, Webster agrees, "takes away from the important thing: the need for intellectuals to connect with working people".

Keith Breckenridge, departmental director at the Wits Institute for Social and Economic Research, feels differently.

"I don't think it's helpful to describe neoliberalism as a single moment; it's being made to carry too much weight," he tells me in a phone interview. "It gets blamed for too many things."

Neoliberalism is used to describe very different moments and processes in our recent history, he says. The influence of Thatcherism led the apartheid government to "abandon its role as the demiurge of the economy", which resulted in the decay of state institutions and infrastructure.

"The ANC was given a bankrupt state. Their neoliberalism was accidental. They're desperately trying to fix that, to push state-supported infrastructure into the countryside."

Breckenridge does not think that the ANC has abandoned the poor.

"There's been an extraordinary transfer of resources from rich to poor over the last 10 years, even though most people experience it as excruciatingly inadequate.

"The poor have always been in appalling circumstances, necessitating protest. The point of the protests is not just protest itself. It's that systems of representation are broken."

He doesn't believe intellectuals have lost touch with workers either. "We have very strong links between universities and workers, especially compared to other countries. It might not be as strong as it was but it's certainly not the case that intellectuals have abandoned workers."

But there's a caveat: intellectual life needs to be nurtured, he says. "Nigeria's public universities have been on strike since July. There are lots of very, very good African intellectuals but almost none of them live on the continent because universities aren't protected."

He refers to a 2012 New York Times article on Philip Altbach's Paying the Professoriat, which compares academics' salaries at publicly funded universities in 28 countries, using a purchasing power parity index. South Africa is ranked third in the world in terms of paying its professors.

Breckenridge says, although Ethi­o­pian academics earn very little, the figure is high relative to the country's gross domestic product, 23 times the country average, as opposed to the United States, Germany and Australia, where the figure is twice the country average. "This shows that, in Ethiopia academics are very highly valued," the article quotes Gregory Androushchak, one of the book's co-editors, as saying.

If the voiceless resort to violence because those intended to speak for them are failing, perhaps a revival of "committed intellectualism" is necessary. But, as Webster says, it is not only an intellectual task, and first we need a climate that will sustain intellectualism on the continent.

---

Who are Africa's greatest living intellectuals? Here are five of them:

Wole Soyinka (Nigeria), playwright and poet, born 1934
Soyinka, an outspoken critic of authoritarian regimes, was imprisoned during the Nigerian civil war in 1967. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature in 1986. For the past few decades, he has lived mostly in the United States. He is professor in residence at the Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles.

<strong>Ngugi wa Thiong'o (Kenya), writer, born 1938</strong>
Writing in English and latterly in Gikuyu, he was imprisoned by the Kenyan regime in 1977. He was released after being adopted as an Amnesty International prisoner of conscience and fled from Kenya to the US, where he has taught at Yale, New York University and the University of California, Irving.

<strong>Mahmood Mamdani (Uganda), academic and political commentator, born 1946</strong>
He was expelled from Uganda by Idi Amin in 1972 because of his Indian ethnicity. He now lives in both Uganda and the US. He is director of the Makerere Institute of Social Research in Kampala and the Herbert Lehman professor of government at Columbia University.

<strong>JM Coetzee (South Africa), writer, born 1940</strong>
An outspoken critic of apartheid, he is celebrated for works such as Waiting for the Barbarians and Disgrace. The reclusive Coetzee, who emigrated to Australia 11 years ago, was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature in 2003.

<strong>Kwame Anthony Appiah (Ghana), philosopher, born 1954</strong>
The son of a Ghanaian diplomat, he was born in the United Kingdom and raised in Kumasi, Ghana. His works include The Ethics of Identity (2005). He is the Laurance S Rockefeller professor of philosophy at Princeton University. – Louise Ferreira

<strong>Sources: Professor Keith Breckenridge and the websites Africa Is A Country and Africapedia. Additional biographical information from WikipediaA pride of brightest minds</strong>

***

The last Jewish intellectual.

Raised in Jerusalem and Cairo but educated in the US, Edward Said was a maverick both culturally and politically, yet he was also a great humanist of the old school. Terry Eagleton on "an imagination quickened by the diverse

Power, Politics and Culture: interviews with Edward W Said

Edited and with an introduction by Gaur

By Terry Eagleton Published 29 March 2004

Reading these 29 interviews with the late Edward Said, it is hard to believe that he needed an emergency button in his New York apartment which was connected to the local police station, or that his office at Columbia University was once burned down. For the judicious, eminently reasonable figure who emerges from these absorbing dialogues is the exact opposite of the bogeyman branded a "professor of terror" by some of his less level-headed Zionist opponents.

Said certainly detested Zionism, but he hated terrorism, too, and says so loud and clear in this collection. He was the finest intellectual champion that the Palestinians are ever likely to have, yet ended up feeling little but icy contempt for Yasser Arafat and his brutal, corrupt regime. (The regime returned the compliment, grotesquely claiming that this scourge of US foreign policy was a CIA agent.) He could be acerbically critical of Arab regimes, a note rarely struck by Bernard Lewis or Conor Cruise O'Brien in their apologias for Israel. At one point in the book, he dubs Hamas and Islamic Jihad "violent and primitive". Saddam Hussein (and this from a man who vigorously opposed the first Gulf war) is a "murderer and a pig and a tyrant and a fascist". Said even supported UN sanctions against Iraq, while rejecting the faux-left line that if the fight is between fascism and imperialism, you must reluctantly opt for the latter.

He admits that Israel's actions in Gaza and the West Bank drive him to "tremendous anger", yet he also describes himself, a mite tongue-in-cheek, as "the last Jewish intellectual", meaning a thinker who, in Judaic style, is wandering, homeless, dispossessed. He disagrees with the equation of Zionism with racism, which strikes him as too simple-minded. He has, he remarks, felt a lifelong affinity with Jews, and there is nothing in this lucid, passionate volume to suggest that this is a mealy-mouthed gesture. The abrupt, abrasive Said, who is quite capable of rounding suddenly on his interrogators in this book when he feels they are being pious or coy, did not do mealy-mouthed.

Neither did he do Theory. The man who helped to change the face of literary studies despised what he calls here "jaw-shattering jargonistic postmodernism", and gave up reading cultural theory years earlier. His concern is justice, not identity. He is more interested in emancipating the dispossessed than in bending genders or floating signifiers. One of the major architects of modern cultural thought comes across in this book as profoundly out of sympathy with its cerebral convolutions, which - as he shrewdly sees - are largely a symptom of political displacement and despair. Popular culture, he remarks provocatively, "means absolutely nothing to me", a comment that would not have won him many invitations to beach parties had he been an assistant professor of English in California.

In fact, Said was all along a humanist of the old school, and declares this unfashionable allegiance without the slightest sense of embarrassment. If he fought for the extension of the literary canon to peoples and nations that it shunned, it was not, in his view, a canon to be derided callowly. He did not see the need to choose between Jane Austen and Chinua Achebe. If ethnic or cultural identities can be politically energising, they can also be spiritually narrowing. "I am not just interested in Palestinians in American literature," he observes, unlike those vulgar Marxists who used to be interested only in novels with coal mines. He could tell you without effort which poets were up and coming in the Philippines, or how autobiography was faring in South Korea, but he also saw his own inquiries as extending the work of the great European humanists, drawing upon their scrupulousness, rigour and erudition. He did not save himself a lot of tedious spadework by dismissing these luminaries as dead white males. Nor did he accept the patronising line that any novel written in the post-colonial world is automatically to be praised. And he was as distinguished a classical musician as he was a literary critic.

The same maverick quality characterised his politics which, in their nervousness of orthodoxies, were in some ways more liberal than socialist. He sometimes speaks of the left as though he were not part of it, which might have come as a surprise to those who set fire to his office. Marxism he handled warily, and the word "capitalism" rarely crossed his lips. He was almost physically pained by rigid doctrinal systems, and mildly revolted by the idea of discipleship. His imagination was quickened by the diverse, unstable and unpredictable, and turned off by the homogeneous. It is hardly a surprising predilection for a Christian Arab brought up in Jerusalem and Cairo and educated in the United States.

What interested him is what he called "travelling theory"; and this sense of being errant, provisional, intellectually on the hoof, was one of several ways in which he remained true to the exiled people to whom he lent his voice. He describes himself in this volume as "a traveller, who is not interested in holding territory, who has no realm to protect". It is natural that he should use a geopolitical metaphor for the life of the mind. Yet he also sees that being caught between two or more cultures can be a cause of misery as well as a source of creativity. He is not given to the sacred postmodern ritual of romanticising the Other, and with typical even-handedness castigates the fashionable cult of exile. Not every post-colonial who steps off the plane to take up a well-paid job at Oxford or Yale is an exile or refugee. Said himself, whose mercantile family was remarkably cultivated and well-heeled, rightly refused the term as a self-description.

Intellectuals are not only different from academics, but almost the opposite of them. Academics usually plough a narrow disciplinary patch, whereas intellectuals of Said's kind roam ambitiously from one discipline to another. Academics are interested in ideas, whereas intellectuals seek to bring ideas to an entire culture. The word "intellectual" is not a euphemism for "frightfully clever", but a kind of job description, like "waiter" or "chartered accountant". Anger and academia do not usually go together, except perhaps when it comes to low pay, whereas anger and intellectuals do.

Above all, academics are conscious of the difficult, untidy, nuanced nature of things, while intellectuals take sides. One reason why Raymond Williams seems to have been easily Edward Said's favourite British intellectual is that the work of both men combines these qualities with astonishing ease. Williams and Said are both angry and analytic while aware that, in all the most pressing political conflicts which confront us, someone is going to have to win and someone to lose. It is this, not a duff ear for nuance and subtlety, which marks them out from the liberal.

Like most post-colonial thinkers, Said is suspicious of Enlightenment rationalism, having witnessed at first hand some of the shadows that this light can cast over the world. Yet the forthright honesty and steely lucidity of his voice in these interviews, his impatience with cant and pious waffle, also bear witness to the virtues of that rationality. Perhaps if those who reviled and insulted Said could have read this book, they might have desisted. Or perhaps not. For, like any authentic intellectual, Edward Said was aware that ideas, for all their impor- tance, weigh very little when it comes to material interests.

Terry Eagleton's most recent book is After Theory (Allen Lane, the Penguin Press)

***

http://petras.lahaine.org/?p=92

Left intellectuals and the desperate search for respectability

03.18.2001 :: Analysis

When George Soros, one of the biggest and most rapacious speculators in the world, published a book calling into question some of the most destructive aspects of speculative capital, left intellectuals raced to reproduce his quotes as evidence that indeed \"global capital\" was a threat to humanity.

The curious part of this scenario is that Soros got free publicity, increased his royalties, a raise in political and intellectual stature, while continuing to profit from his management of speculative investment funds. This is not an isolated case: more often than not, leftist intellectuals seek out "respectable" sources to bolster their arguments, citing them as "impeccable" or as "without a hint of leftist sympathies," as if leftist research and scholarship is less reliable or less likely to convince. The leftist search for bourgeois respectability has profound implications in discussing the problem of the growth of an alternative political-intellectual culture.

One of the striking aspects of contemporary politics is the gap between the declining objective conditions of the working class and rural labor and the subjective responses, which are diffuse, fragmented, and frequently under the tutelage of neo-liberal parties. This contrast is most glaring in the Third World, but is also present in the advanced capitalist countries.

While inequalities between classes, races, gender, and regions has increased and social services for the working class have been slashed to provide lower taxes and higher subsidies for the rich, the subjective response is muted: strikes and protests tend to be defensive reactions, agrarian movements lack urban allies, and most intellectuals are dissociated from the popular struggles or have accepted the basic premises of neo-liberal ideology, namely that "globalization" is inevitable and irreversible. In a word, "bourgeois hegemony" plays a vital role in ensuring the stability of a highly unequal and exploitative social system.

Bourgeois hegemony is a product of numerous factors, including the mass media and the cultural institutions of the state. However, bourgeois hegemony is also the result of the behavior and methods of work of left intellectuals, who seek out legitimacy for their intellectual production in the bourgeois world.

Today many left intellectuals borrow from and have assimilated the key concepts and language of bourgeois theorists and publicists in analyzing the contemporary world. The language and concepts borrowed from the bourgeoisie include "globalization," "stateless capital," "information revolution," "structural adjustment," "labor flexibility," etc. These concepts are integral to the imperial system and neo-liberal ideology?they are understandable in the context of a system of power that seeks to disguise and legitimate its domination. Yet, left intellectuals eschew using more precise concepts which are far more useful in identifying contemporary power configurations, such as imperialism instead of globalization; imperial state instead of stateless corporations; ascendancy of financial power instead of the "information revolution"; intensive/extensive exploitation instead of labor flexibility; economic reversion instead of economic reform; reconcentration and monopolization of wealth instead of structural adjustment.

Left intellectual tail-ending of the bourgeoisie with regard to the "globalization" paradigm is part of a larger problem embedded in a deeper subordination to bourgeois culture; namely, of looking up to the dominant culture for sources of truth, objectivity, prestige, and recognition. Left intellectuals' search for bourgeois prestige, recognition, institutional affiliations, and certification imply a de facto embrace of the values associated with them. The overt embrace of these values and practices play an important role in perpetuating bourgeois hegemony, despite the left intellectuals' protestations.

An important aspect of career advancement and recognition, as well as securing a position in prestigious bourgeois institutions, involves playing by their rules of the game in pursuing intellectual work. By following these "rules of the game," left intellectuals give legitimacy to bourgeois claims of legitimacy and strengthens their hegemonic position.

Legitimizing Hegemony

One of the principle rules practiced by left intellectuals in conducting research is to cite bourgeois sources, even when left sources are available and provide a critical perspective. The pseudo- argument put forth by left intellectuals is that by citing bourgeois sources over left sources, they will be more convincing to the "general audience" or academic world. By proceeding in this way, left intellectuals strengthen the authority of the bourgeois writers as the source of objective truth. They reinforce and perpetuate the invisibility of left researchers and their work by failing to acknowledge their contribution. They acquire respectability and acceptability by sharing with their bourgeois colleagues a common literature and common understanding of what and who is "important to read." Left intellectuals, by citing particular criticisms of capitalism by particularly notorious pro- capitalist personalities, refurbish their images and thus provide them with a future platform from which to denounce the left.

The response of left intellectuals to George Soros's book, is a case in point. Soros has a well- earned reputation as a speculator who has made billions pillaging economies and ruining countries, before, during, and after the publication of his book. He played and continues to play a major role in bankrolling cultural institutions and co-opting intellectuals particularly in the ex- communist countries, who subsequently implemented "free market" economic policies that have devastated these countries. Despite this background, left intellectuals fell all over themselves quoting his criticisms of speculative activities and capitalist excesses as if he was a special authority on the pitfalls of capitalism. Left intellectuals in their desperate search for vindication quoted Soros to back their criticism of neo-liberalism, overlooking the fact that Soros was making billions bilking Asian economies.

The relation of left intellectuals with the World Bank is another illustration of this search for respectability. The World Bank annually publishes a statistical appendix that includes data on poverty in the world. More often than not, left intellectuals cite the World Bank's figures to make their arguments without critically examining the way in which poverty is measured and the manner in which poverty is underestimated. The fact is the World Bank's figures are unreliable and their measures of poverty totally inadequate. Their "poverty line" is one dollar a day, which is not livable anywhere in the world. If an adequate poverty index was constructed by left researchers they would double or triple the number of poor in the world. Yet by citing World Bank figures, left intellectuals appeal to their "conservative" colleagues, demonstrating that they share common sources. By citing the authority of the World Bank, they strengthen its image as at least "a useful source of data." The World Bank's measure of poverty in the Third World reaches such absurd heights that the percentages of the population living in poverty in Southeast Asia are almost at the same level as the U.S. and Canada.

The Economic Commission on Latin America (ECLA) is another "impeccable" source of data and point of reference for left intellectuals?as if being a leftist would contaminate the data. For example, left intellectuals frequently look to ECLA for data on the privatization of public enterprises (a key part of ECLA's political agenda). But a closer look at ECLA's documents reveals that they hardly ever discuss the corruption and give-aways involved in privatizations. ECLA describes it as a pure economic process, and claims they are not involved in the political aspects of privatization and even less the negative consequences both in the long and short term. ECLA says that state transactions should be transparent. But ECLA doesn't face up to the fact that privatizations are not "transparent." Why does ECLA continue to promote the privatization recipe, when they know first hand that the process of privatization is corrupt and involves the give-away of valuable resources at bargain prices? Knowing ECLA's bias, why do the left intellectuals cite its data on privatizations when prominent leftist writers and journalists have published more complete and critical discussions?

Featuring Prominent Personalities

Left intellectuals, in their constant search for respectability, not only look toward bourgeois institutions to buttress their arguments, but also they search for prominent bourgeois personalities with name recognition and prestige in bourgeois circles to promote popular causes. Frequently, in organizing a public event, left intellectuals will ignore the most consequential writers, the militant activists or leaders in favor of a so-called "progressive" actor, lawyer, judge, or writer who has neither knowledge of or practice in the struggle at hand, but will offer some glittering platitudes that educate no one and fail to resonate with the people in action.

Left intellectuals, by promoting individuals with "celebrity status" as a method of attracting mass media publicity, sacrifice the content of the meeting. The political cost can be significant: the political meeting becomes a "spectacle," entertainment that de-politicizes more than educates people into the cause and consequences of struggle. Moreover, left intellectuals frequently have to explain away the "lapses" of the prestigious celebrity who frequently equates popular violence in defense of their lives, land, and livelihood with the violence of the predatory imperial powers.

"Of course," left intellectuals would reply in an apologetic manner, "he (or she) is not one of ours, but look how many people showed up, look how many centimeters of print we got in the bourgeois press, how many seconds on television." In the name of the "broadest unity," the left creates a platform for bourgeois celebrity's speech, which frequently deflects criticism from the system to a policy, from a policy to a personality thus obfuscating the purpose of the mass meeting. Even worse, the prestigious bourgeois celebrities touted by the left intellectuals as progressives at a public event can turn around the next day and celebrate festivities with high dignitaries of a regressive regime…which discredits the left and sows confusion among the populace about the nature of left politics.

The Quest for Symbols of Prestige

Left intellectuals crave recognition from their bourgeois colleagues and will eschew public action, denounce activist colleagues, and adopt servile postures to please their conservative superiors and judges in hopes of securing a symbol of bourgeois prestige. Prestigious bourgeois awards are a ticket to promotion and legitimacy in the eyes of upwardly mobile leftist intellectuals. Consequential intellectuals with commitments to practical popular struggles do not receive any prestigious awards. For left intellectuals, winning a Nobel Prize, a Guggenheim, or Ford Foundation fellowship is seen as the culmination of a successful career. It provides certification from the academic power elite that left intellectuals can be honored for abstaining from any anti-imperialist or anti-capitalist struggle. It was that understanding that caused Jean Paul Sartre to reject the Nobel Prize.

For left intellectuals, however, in sponsoring political events, it is these very titles and awards, which are cited in introducing a "prestigious" speaker. By giving prominence to the titles and awards, left intellectuals have to convince the audience that the left has somehow achieved intellectual status. In fact, what the Left does is to legitimate bourgeois standards and selection procedures and the underlying conditions that determine the granting of awards thereby strengthening bourgeois hegemony.

The left's craving for bourgeois respectability is also found in the prominence it gives to institutional identities: left intellectuals boast of being graduates of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge, the Sorbonne as if these were not centers to indoctrinate students with neo- liberal and pro-imperialist doctrines. The same is true of former government officials who are given prominence by left intellectuals. While no one can object to ex-government officials having a change of thinking and becoming critical of the state, the point of convergence with the left should be the fact that they are ex-officials and not the former holders of "prestigious" positions in a bourgeois regime.

Recruiting talented individuals from the popular classes constantly renews bourgeois hegemony. Frequently this is done by offering scholarships to poor but bright students to attend "prestigious" universities, which "re-educate" and train them to serve the dominant classes. The Left should listen and read what intellectuals write despite their prestigious institutional credentials not because of them.

In addition to prestigious awards and institutional identities, left intellectuals are perpetually looking for prominent bourgeois sponsors for events: personalities, institutions, and official agencies. The idea is that the more bourgeois a sponsor, the greater the respectability, the greater the legitimacy and the wider the public. In fact, this leads to greater visibility and legitimacy for the bourgeois institutions of power, while radical institutions are marginalized and made invisible.

Securing a Successful Career

We can identify at least four career strategies for respectable and upwardly mobile left intellectuals. The first strategy could be described as the "cold storage" approach, whereby left intellectuals maintain a low profile for many years, more or less doing conventional research until they secure a position in a prestigious university and consolidate their career and then "turn" radical. The problem is, of course, that most "crypto" leftists in the course of adapting to the career exigencies of success eventually believe what they are doing and never "turn": they become what they do. For the minority that "convert," they have their cake and eat it too: they have their prestigious identity in the bourgeois world and the applause of the left, particularly since they bring to their radical rhetoric the added merit, in the eyes of left intellectuals, of a prestigious title.

The second strategy for securing a successful career in a prestigious university is to combine conventional research and teaching during work time and workplace with after-hours radical chitchat. Leftism as an "avocation" is particularly attractive to the bourgeois guardians of academia, because it does not inform scientific research, nor does it question the educational system's role in reproducing elite leaders or conformist skilled workers. This can be described as the "cocktail left"?where in discreet private settings, leftists from prestigious institutions can vent their inconsequential radical views while in working time they climb the academic ladder.

The third strategy for leftist success in academia is found in the disproportionate time and effort devoted to conventional academic work in comparison with the meager intellectual efforts devoted to popular movements. In this strategy, left intellectuals devote months and years to preparing lectures and publications for academic consumption, while they improvise a lecture with anecdotal material for radical/popular audiences, frequently recycling or repeating the same talk given the previous year. In some cases, leftist intellectuals, drawing a substantial stipend, will simply reminisce on a distant radical past; nostalgia becomes a substitute for serious analysis.

Finally, there are left academics that conduct research and scholarship as "disinterested" scholars, divorced from struggles, movements, and political commitments. They write about the working class without any political perspective. They may provide useful information if someone else can elaborate an intellectual-political framework to link it to contemporary political events. This strategy for academic success has some merit and utility if other intellectuals or activists have been doing the risky (career-wise) political work of building a movement; otherwise, it merely serves to extend one's curriculum vita. This particular type of leftist academic is particularly prominent in the U.S. where there are annual conferences mimicking the conventional professional meetings, where the academics talk to each other?in other words, divorced from popular movements. The divorce between academic leftism and popular struggles has led to some leftists securing highly remunerated distinguished chairs in prestigious universities.

The practice of left academic arrivismo perpetuates the myth, particularly in the Third World, that "true knowledge" is abroad in the prestigious schools with name recognition and that local "national" left intellectuals are inferior and certainly not role models.

Left intellectuals from prestigious institutions, for reason of their own appointments and status, overlook or understate the ideological distortions, mystifications, and inappropriate theoretical and conceptual frameworks which are taught at the prestigious centers of higher learning. The heavy ideological bias that is packaged into education in prestigious institutions is obfuscated by the presence of the left intellectuals who rarely challenge their colleagues' work, even less the curriculum, knowing full well they would be penalized. In any case, if leftists at prestigious institutions do occasionally verbalize dissent, it is their presence in the institutions and the process of accession that fuels the ambitions of the new generations of writers.

What is striking about the left intellectuals in prestigious universities and those seeking entry is their suspension of criticism of bourgeois sponsors, foundations, and personalities who fund big research agendas for perpetuating and extending imperial power. Left intellectuals, by suspending criticism, improve their chances of entry into the prestigious journals, the international conferences, and the lucrative positions of academic prominence.

Contemporary Intellectual "Lifestyles"

There are a variety of "lifestyles" in "being" a left intellectual today, in the face of the power and wealth of the Euro-American empire. There is the intellectual today who wanders across the political spectrum offering to service a variety of patrons. One well known French intellectual denounced the public employees' strikes in 1995, attended an international Zapatista meeting in 1996, and then flew to meet with and praise the right-wing president of Uruguay. These are the intellectuals for all places and prices. Their public posture is motivated more by the need for recognition and publicity from whatever side as it is by firm intellectual principles. They do not "sell out" to the right, they are rented, and are even available to the left in certain circumstances.

House intellectuals are those whose universe is other intellectuals or even their own "internal reflection." These exchanges are particularly prominent among the post-modernists who discuss how many identities can stand at the end of the pin. They have their own exotic language, only understandable to the initiated and their work is largely confined to deciphering texts and language divorced from the objective world.

There are intellectuals who are in perpetual anguish, who fret over social-economic problems ("neo-liberalism" and "globalization") and never go beyond the common refrain, "We must find an alternative." They ignore the everyday struggles trying to create alternatives. They fear the problem (imperialism) and fear the solution (a social transformation).

Leftists who bathe in historic defeats find in them a pretext for what they dub a new realist or pragmatic accommodation with the status quo. While overdramatizing political losses as profound and irreversible historical defeats, they fail to recognize the new revolutionary struggles emerging in the Third World and in the West, the new social movements opposing the WTO, the militant farmer and transport workers' movements, the massive producer and consumer rejection of corporate sponsors of genetically altered food and seeds, etc. Pessimistic pathos becomes either an alibi for inaction and disengagement or a one-way ticket to liberal politics since it is perceived as the only show in town.

In sharp contrast to the above-mentioned intellectual postures, there are the irreverent intellectuals, irreverent toward academic protocols and unimpressed by the prestigious titles and prizes. On the other hand, they are respectful of the militants on the front lines of anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist struggles. They are steady and productive in their intellectual work, which is in large part motivated by the big questions facing movement struggles. They are anti-heroes whose work is respected by the people who are actively working for a basic social transformation. They are objectively partisan and partisanly objective. They discuss and listen to the pessimists and other intellectuals, despite their titles and pretense, to see if they have anything worthwhile to say.

For the irreverent and committed intellectuals, prestige and recognition comes from activists and movements and intellectuals who are involved in popular struggles. They work with those intellectuals and activists. They conduct research looking for original sources of data. They create their own indicators and concepts to identify the real depths of poverty, exploitation and exclusion. They recognize that the prestigious awards and prizes are part of the system sustaining bourgeois hegemony. They recognize that there are a few intellectuals in prestigious institutions and award recipients who are clearly committed to popular struggles and they acknowledge that these exceptions should be noted, while recognizing the many, in climbing the ladder, that succumb to the blandishments of bourgeois certification. Most of all, the irreverent intellectuals fight against bourgeois hegemony within the Left by integrating their writing and teaching with practice, avoiding divided loyalties.

Conclusion

While a good deal of research and writing has been done on the issue of bourgeois hegemony, little attention has been paid to how, within the left, the signs and symbols of bourgeois hegemony are transmitted by putatively left intellectuals. Intellectuals are an important group, particularly in forming the subjectivity of students, and in some contexts, popular classes. Insofar as they are visible and have access to the media, they represent another channel through which subjectivity or political consciousness is formed.

The problem of subjectivity is a key issue today. Increasingly popular disaffection spreads throughout the Third World and even in the imperial countries. The key challenge is linking these discontents with social transformative movements. This requires revolutionary theory, critical concepts, and engaged intellectuals, which, in turn involves a two front struggle, one with the bourgeois powers and the second with the double discourse of left intellectuals.

--
To view previous posts, create a Google account with your current email and log in using gmail to access the archives.
https://accounts.google.com/newaccount?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "debate-list@fahamu.org" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to debate-list+unsubscribe@fahamu.org.
To post to this group, send email to debate-list@fahamu.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/fahamu.org/group/debate-list/.

Email Disclaimer

"This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for use by the addressee. Any unauthorised dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete the message. Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail may solely be the views of the author and cannot be relied upon as being those of Dublin City University. E-mail communications such as this cannot be guaranteed to be virus-free, timely, secure or error-free and Dublin City University does not accept liability for any such matters or their consequences. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail."

Séanadh Ríomhphoist

"Tá an ríomhphost seo agus aon chomhad a sheoltar leis faoi rún agus is lena úsáid ag an seolaí agus sin amháin é. Tá cosc iomlán ar scaipeadh, dháileadh nó chóipeáil neamhúdaraithe ar an teachtaireacht seo agus ar aon cheangaltán atá ag dul leis. Má tá an ríomhphost seo faighte agat trí dhearmad cuir sin in iúl le do thoil don seoltóir agus scrios an teachtaireacht. D'fhéadfadh sé gurb iad tuairimí an údair agus sin amháin atá in aon tuairimí no dearcthaí atá curtha i láthair sa ríomhphost seo agus níor chóir glacadh leo mar thuairimí nó dhearcthaí Ollscoil Chathair Bhaile Átha Cliath. Ní ghlactar leis go bhfuil cumarsáid ríomhphoist den sórt seo saor ó víreas, in am, slán, nó saor ó earráid agus ní ghlacann Ollscoil Chathair Bhaile Átha Cliath le dliteanas in aon chás den sórt sin ná as aon iarmhairt a d'eascródh astu. Cuimhnigh ar an timpeallacht le do thoil sula gcuireann tú an ríomhphost seo i gcló."

--
To view previous posts, create a Google account with your current email and log in using gmail to access the archives.
https://accounts.google.com/newaccount?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "debate-list@fahamu.org" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to debate-list+unsubscribe@fahamu.org.
To post to this group, send email to debate-list@fahamu.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/fahamu.org/group/debate-list/.