I just finished an amazing book, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life by Richard Hofstadter, for which he won the Pulitzer Prize in 1964. The book discusses the fate and impact of intellectuals in and on American society. The picture he paints is not a pretty one.
What was most interesting about the book was the conflict between intellectuals and society from the intellectuals' point of view: The idea of "selling out" is not simply a petty one, but rather the notion that through getting a comfortable position, the intellectual will eventually become docile, and no longer be in a position to function as a social critic. Alienation is a perspective from which one sees society in its stark nakedness, and yields a certain freedom to say what one truly believes, and to no longer be alienated means to be exposed to the temptation to moderate or radically shift one's views in order to maintain a position. Jean-Paul Sartre, one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century, refused the Nobel Prize in Literature, protesting that he "did not want to become an institution." The entire dynamic hinges on the temptation of power: The intellectual values the truth as s/he sees it, and in no longer being alienated, runs the risk of falling victim to some other idol (power, fame, fortune, etc).
There were fleeting moments in which the intellectual community in America (we actually had one!) possessed some power, during Teddy Roosevelt's presidency to World War 1, and later during the Great Depression, and one might suggest also the first two years of Obama's presidency. But each of those moments was but fleeting, and followed by enormous backlash: World War 1 was by all accounts a wanton holocaust, the New Deal was followed by McCarthy era, and Healthcare Reform was followed by the Tea Party with continuous effort to kill it. I might say that Occupy Wall Street, while right, is a failed movement, born too late and will probably die too soon. The Tea Party and TARP have only further ensconced the derivative traders and the corporate bogeymen in the seat of power when they should have been duly and severely punished for their excess.
The pattern of progressive policy in the United States leaves me to wonder about how someone described Michel Foucault's action/inaction dynamic, which at first I didn't like because apathy only enables further action by oppressors, but now I am starting to realize just what kind of position educated people find themselves in, and whether or not Foucault is indeed right.
Foucault, according to this person I was talking to, suggests that any kind of protest--such as Occupy Wall Street--legitimizes the current power structure. Protest, in this view, falls far short of what could be argued necessary revolution, and in this way, does not seek to make substantial changes to the prevailing order. As an example, look at women's rights, which are never so secure. Despite sexual liberation, widespread birth control, and new economic opportunity, women are still paid substantially less than their male counterparts. Examine the wanton manner in which cases of rape and sexual harassment are handled, Herman Cain being the latest example: Here is a man who is blatantly misogynist, indicating that he is most likely to have been guilty of sexual harassment by way of his low opinion of women, and we as a society seek not to punish him for this behavior, but rather to undermine the claims of his accusers. So often, despite the enormous advances in women's rights generally (not just abortion, that is an entirely more rabid and dangerous animal), they never feel quite so secure. African-Americans, however, appear to be so secure in their status that they are more than happy to align themselves with their previous oppressors and disparage homosexuals in their struggle for equal marriage rights, when the actual reality is that they suffer economically more than other groups in the current crisis. "You can still hold the keys to the kingdom, but I want X, Y, and Z" just doesn't work; when the truth is that it may be a choice of all or nothing.
Is there a way that intellectuals could have a lasting impact on society given the pattern of brief success followed by overwhelming backlash? Is it possible for those who know anything at all about how our society operates to be heard and listened to by anyone who has real power? What happens when intellectuals do get power? The Russian Revolution was born through the intelligentsia, and only unimaginable horror followed. The American Socialist Party, for their turn, owed much to intellectuals, but were just as confused by their presence as the capitalists, despite the fact that Marxism gained ground first in academia. The gulf between theory and praxis has never been bridged; the men who act are always at odds with the men who think.
So what do the intellectuals do, putting aside the anxieties of acceptance, if they cannot have a lasting impact on the course of society because of quintessential popular American mistrust? Do they wring their hands and allow those who show themselves to be malevolent, both to society and to intellectualism, to simply take over?
After Bush left office, I was fairly optimistic that Obama could have a real positive impact on society because of his intellect; I voted for him because of it. And what happened to him has happened to every other public figure with any significant degree of intellect: He was immediately lampooned by the most ignorant, backward, and even malicious among us, and arguably his most brilliant success is still being campaigned against, and is being tried at the Supreme Court. Halfway through his presidency--a span of merely two years--he was declared a lame duck by a pseudo-movement that could be described as nothing short of rabid. His reelection chances, depending on the commitments of our electorate, are slim. Because of the backlash against his intellect by a vagrant and uncommitted voting population, our election cycles have seemed to be rapidly accelerated, leaving far less time for any responsible public official to be productive, leaving those with questionable aims and the means to sell their poison pills to the public as though they were selling candy ample opportunity to wreak havoc.
The difference is stark: The Tea Party came out with a loud, clear, anti-intellectualist and xenophobic message that, to its own demographic, would prove suicidal were it pursued. Occupy Wall Street, on the other hand, is a genuinely populist movement, taking into account a very diverse membership, had difficulty deciding on more than a few decent slogans, but anyone with half a brain could figure out exactly what OWS was trying to say, and the conversation that Occupy movements across the country have been having with greater society have been rather...insightful.
Through Occupy Wall Street, we have learned some interesting things about how much we learn from the past, the range of acceptable political debate, and where our professional press stands: With the people it was supposed to serve, or the current power structure? UC Davis students were wantonly pepper-sprayed by a thug in a uniform. Lt Anthony Bologna in New York City pepper-sprayed a young girl behind a barricade, despite the fact that she was doing nothing. Oakland Police used military action against nonviolent protestors in order to evict them, and war veteran Scott Olsen was hit in the head with a tear gas canister, and a flashbang grenade was thrown into the group of people who rushed to help him. Where police officers get flashbang grenades, I would very much like to know. The militarization of police is an issue that will surely crop up again. Police officers, I should remind everyone, are unionized, and they are fighting for a power structure that will only exploit them and diminish their rights as public employees. The only explanation for rampant and unwarranted police violence is that they don't know or don't care about this technicality, and only get off on having a gun and holding power over others (top two responses of a survey my Sociology professor conducted on a class of police recruits). This is an interesting fact because there was almost no violence when the Tea Party held their rallies, despite their strong use of revolutionary and brazenly violent rhetoric, anti-union views, and their fetish for second amendment rights.
All of these things happened in previous eras: African-Americans were attacked by police dogs, beaten, and sprayed with fire hoses. Students were shot on a campus during the demonstrations against the Vietnam War. And we know how those turned out. But with Occupy Wall Street, they are using a wholly different tactic. Those in power are indirectly undermining the movement by intentionally diluting its message, claiming that they don't know what it is. So they would have us believe that a few hundred thousand people are gathering in public space and enduring extreme police violence for no reason? Either they are have lost all capacity for critical thinking, or this apparent confusion is deliberate. Our press is failing us absolutely, regardless of which of those two options you choose.
The allegiance of the press in times of crisis is always helpful to figure out, in order to gauge the degree to which the people should trust it. There are always those who will trust the media no matter what, even if violence rages in the streets outside their windows, and only one side has the weapons and armor.
Occupy Wall Street is also about how much we can actually say in our democracy. In the wake of massive financial meltdown--as I have oft repeated--we still have prominent people who will go to their graves reciting the mantras of the virtue of free-market capitalism, while millions are starving. Many adults who have lost their jobs, whose lives fell into ruin, still love the capitalism that killed them. The True Believers will never be swayed, even as they find themselves homeless. Can Occupy Wall Street fulfill its promise? Can it consolidate its myriad voices, and scream what needs to be said? Can it rise above the crowded voices of the corporate bogeymen, speculative sycophants, and alter forever the discourse of this country?
I personally believe that as a consequence of TARP, the management teams of any and all firms that participated in the program should have been immediately fired without severance, retirement, or a "parachute". I also believe that the banks, as a consequence of their irresponsibility, should have been placed under the control of the federal government, even though this does not by itself guarantee that the firms would behave more responsibly. I also believe that the IRS should thoroughly investigate all banks that participated in the program as a necessary condition of their receiving taxpayer funds, and lastly, that all derivative trading being pursued by these banks should be stopped immediately. Lastly, I urge everyone to move their money into a smaller institution on the condition that the bank they choose has not received TARP funds.
I realize that the question of apathy has not been solved, that I have spent more time on Occupy Wall Street than I intended. I have not worked out whether or not apathy is warranted, because we still live here and are still affected by the decisions of our politicians, even if we do not hold any real influence, but this could be said to be true for all Americans, intellectual or not.
