Left intellectuals and the desperate search for respectability
07/11/2000
- Opinión
Introduction
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, increasing 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
bourgeois
hegemony over popular classes and 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 the 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 which seeks to disguise and legitimate its
domination. Yet, the 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. The issue of
intellectual mimicry in which amorphous and deceptive intellectual language
and
concepts are adopted by contemporary Left intellectuals instead of the more
precise and rigorous language raises an important question: why the Left
"falls
victim" or, better still, follows in the footsteps of the bourgeoisie in
working
from the globalization paradigm?
The General Problem
The argument of this paper is that the Left intellectuals 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. The Left intellectuals' subordination to bourgeois
culture co-
exists with the development of a parallel but partial critique of bourgeois
institutions and culture. Left intellectuals who work from the bourgeois
paradigm of globalization are in search of respectability and recognition
which
would not be attainable if they operated from the imperialist paradigm.
The 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 and counter-hegemonic rhetoric. The fact of the matter is
students, workers and in general the popular classes follow what the Left
intellectuals do and not what they say, and the institutional
identification and
the symbolic awards they pursue in their careers and everyday life speak
eloquently for what they really value.
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', the left intellectuals give legitimacy to bourgeois claims of
legitimacy
and strengthens their hegemonic position.
Legitimizing Bourgeois 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 the left
intellectuals is that by citing bourgeois sources over left sources, they
will
be more convincing to the 'general audience' or academic world. In a very
direct sense, the Left intellectuals accomplish several things by
proceeding in
this way. In the first instance, they strengthen the authority of the
bourgeois
writers, as the source of objective truth. Secondly, they reinforce and
perpetuate the invisibility of left researchers and their work failing to
acknowledge their contribution. Thirdly, 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'. Fourthly, the
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 the left intellectuals to George Soros' 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 coopting intellectuals particularly
in the
ex-Communist countries, who subsequently implemented "free market" economic
policies that have devastated these countries. Despite this background,
the
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 even as the book came out he was making billions bilking the
Asian
economies. The isolation of the left intellectuals from mass movements and
their humble prostration before bourgeois power which leads them to seek
right-
wing personalities to justify their appeals to basically bourgeois
audiences.
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 which 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 under-estimated. The Left intellectuals
cite the
World Bank as an unimpeachable authority on poverty, precisely because of
its
right-wing, neo-liberal credentials. The fact of the matter 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 the left researchers they
would
double or triple the number of poor in the world. Yet by citing the World
Bank
figures, the 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 measures of poverty in the Third World reach 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. Instead of
recognizing that the World Bank's neo-liberal ideology shapes the
indicators and
measures of poverty, the clever left intellectuals think they can separate
one
from the other and save themselves the arduous task of constructing their
own
measures of poverty and conducting field research or even worse, citing the
facts and figures on poverty found by leftist researchers and among
activist
militants.
The Economic Commission on Latin America (ECLA) is another source of data
and
point of reference for the left intellectuals. Left intellectuals once
again
present ECLA as an impeccable source without any leftist taint -- 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 (which is
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 always describes it as a pure economic process, and
they
claim that they are not involved in the political aspects and how the
politicians organize the privatizations and even less the negative
consequences
both in the long and short term. In general terms, ECLA states that state
transactions should be transparent. But ECLA doesn't face up to the fact
that
privatizations are not 'transparent'. The question is why ECLA continues
to
promote the privatization recipes, 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? By playing to Soros, the
World
Bank and ECLA, the left intellectuals prolong bourgeois hegemony by using
their
data, giving authority to their sources and borrowing their language.
Featuring Prominent Bourgeois Personalities
The left intellectuals, in their constant search for respectability, not
only
look toward bourgeois institutions to buttress their arguments, but they
search
for prominent bourgeois personalities with name recognition and prestige in
bourgeois circles to promote popular causes. Frequently, in organizing a
public
event, the 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.
The left intellectuals, by promoting individuals with "celebrity status" in
the
mass media as a method of attracting media publicity and a curious public,
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, the left intellectuals frequently have to explain away the
"lapses" of
the prestigious bourgeois -- celebrity who frequently equates popular
violence
in defense of their lives, land and livelihood with the violence of the
predatory imperial powers.
"Of course," the 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 that not infrequently 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 and who are their appropriate
leaders
and spokes people.
Because left intellectuals are obsessed with the approval by the mass media
and
bourgeois respectability, they prefer to search for bourgeois notables who
will
lend an ear when it suits their interests, instead of building support
through
grassroots organizing.
The Quest for Symbols of Bourgeois Prestige
Left intellectuals crave recognition from their bourgeois colleagues and
will
eschew public action, denounce activist colleagues and will 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 the upwardly mobile Leftist
intellectual. Consequential intellectuals with commitments to practical
popular
struggles do not receive any prestigious awards. For the 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 the left intellectual 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. The pursuit of
prestigious
bourgeois prizes and awards precludes certain active commitments, and that
is
understood both by the Euro-American Foundations and the intellectuals who
petition them.
For the left intellectuals, however, in sponsoring political events, it is
these
very titles and awards which are cited in introducing a "prestigious"
speaker.
The Left fawns upon the bourgeois awards as evidence of its own integrity
and
knowledge. By giving prominence to the titles and awards, they 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 which determine the granting of awards. In a
word, by fawning over bourgeois prizes, the left strengthens 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, where one learns to say something significant and
critical about the Empire, despite the professors and seminars. Yet
institutional identity is flaunted by left intellectuals when introducing a
speaker or writer.
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 sate, 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.
Bourgeois hegemony is constantly renewed by recruiting talented individuals
from
the popular classes as Karl Marx pointed out long ago. 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, the left
intellectuals are perpetually looking for prominent bourgeois sponsors for
events: personalities, institutions, 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.
How Left Intellectuals Secure a Successful Career
Being an active, critical leftist has political costs, not least is
pursuing an
academic career. Yet many intellectuals have followed a variety of paths
to a
successful career in bourgeois institutions and retained a smattering of
leftist
credentials.
We can identify at least four career strategies for the 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 the Left
intellectuals, 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 work-
place
with after-hours radical chit-chat. 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, the leftist
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, the left intellectual devotes 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.
These reminiscences do not require any analysis which might compare past
and
present struggles, it is simply improvisation and anecdotes of the most
superficial and impressionistic sort.
Finally, there are the left academics who 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 some 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 the popular movements. The divorce between
academic
Leftism and popular struggles has led to some leftists securing highly
remunerated distinguished chairs in prestigious universities.
The consequences of these practices by left intellectuals is to reinforce
the
prestige and legitimacy of bourgeois institutions, ideas and personalities
while
left activists' analyses and public positions are made invisible,
perpetuating a
kind of leftist inferiority complex and marginality.
Secondly, because Left academics serve as role models for the younger
generation
of would-be scholars, their behavior promotes careerism and arrivismo. 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.
Thirdly, the 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 the 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 the bourgeois
sponsors,
foundations and personalities who fund the big research agendas for
perpetuating
and extending imperial power. The left intellectuals, by suspending
criticism,
improve their chances of entry into the prestigious journals, the
international
conferences and the lucrative positions of academic prominence. To secure
academic recognition and promotion to honorific posts requires good working
relations with the bourgeois academic watchdogs. The left intellectuals
are
very collegial, even with those colleagues who support imperialist wars and
design neo-liberal programs that devastate the Third World.
Contemporary Intellectuals
There are a variety of 'life styles' in 'being' a Left intellectual today,
in
the face of the power and wealth of the Euro-American empire.
- Intellectuals for Rent
There is a kind of 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 the winter of 1995, attended an
international Zapatista meeting in the summer of 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, the are
rented,
and are even available to the left in certain circumstances.
- House Intellectuals
House intellectuals are those whose universe is other intellectuals or even
their own 'internal reflection'. These incestuous 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.
- Intellectuals of Perpetual Anguish
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).
- The Pessimists
Another familiar intellectual posture is the leftist who bathes in historic
defeats and finds 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.
- Irreverent Intellectuals
In sharp contrast to the above-mentioned intellectual postures, there is
the
irreverent intellectual, 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 self-
ironic,
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. The irreverent intellectuals 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 intellectual, prestige and recognition
comes
from the 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, for example, 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
who succumb to the blandishments of bourgeois certification. The
irreverent
intellectuals admire a Jean Paul Sartre who rejected a Nobel Price in the
midst
of the Vietnam War. Most of all, the irreverent intellectuals fight
against
bourgeois hegemony within the Left by integrating their writing and
teaching
with practice, avoiding divided loyalties. In a word, the irreverent
intellectuals are working toward the creation of a counter-hegemonic
culture.
Conclusion
While a good deal of research and writing has been done on the issue of
bourgeois hegemony through an examination of institutions, the mass media,
educational centers, state propaganda, etc., 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. Their values, career and educational choices,
their
striving and ambitions play a role in shaping 'role models' and
transmitting
messages that have a major impact on specific strategic groups who can or
will
become opinion leaders. To the extent to which intellectuals have absorbed
bourgeois goals and internalized its reward and prestige system, they
became in
turn a specific mechanism prolonging and deepening bourgeois hegemony,
particularly on the left.
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.
https://www.alainet.org/es/node/104927
Del mismo autor
- ALCA = Gaiola de Ferro 07/12/2002
- El ALCA forma parte de la estrategia imperial 05/11/2002
- La contraofensiva imperialista 11/04/2002
- A ofensiva dos EUA na América Latina: golpes, retirada e radicalização 04/04/2002
- Antiglobalización, militarismo y lamebotismo 27/03/2002
- Anti-globalization, militarism and lamabotism 26/03/2002
- U.S. Offensive in Latin America: Golpes, Retreat and Radicalization 08/03/2002
- Los atentados, ¿obra de Al Qaeda? 03/03/2002
- Left intellectuals and the desperate search for respectability 07/11/2000
- Israel, domestic lobbies and the U.S. elections 31/10/2000
Clasificado en
Clasificado en:
![Suscribirse a America Latina en Movimiento - RSS](https://www.alainet.org/misc/feed.png)