Re: writ large

Thanks, robbie :). I was about to say...what the heck was that? I
would agree that an intellectualization of the people would be a good
thing. I'm still not quite sure what you mean by an "anthropocizing of
the intellectual," though.

Swift might be another good example of the intellectual satirizing the
academy.

The main problem I'm having with this discussion is:

A uniformity of attributes ascribed to all "intellectuals" -- as if they
all wrote and spoke the same, and held to the same positions.

Of course, no one can point to any specific example of any
intellectual. At this point the discussion is on about the same level
as good ol' boys down south an' tha way they talks 'bout nee-grows.

It's interesting that Daniel seemed to like, on the one hand, an article
that supported the ridiculous notion that intellectuals have no
influence (just who the heck is running our colleges and universities?
Who's educating the people who teach our children?), but on the other
also made the ridiculous assertion that intellectuals are putting
immense burdens on our backs.

Just think a minute -- you can't have it both ways. Either
intellectuals are ineffective and lay no burdens, or they are effective
and lay burdens. There are two more options, but only one makes sense.
Intellectuals could be effective and lay no burdens. But they cannot be
ineffective and lay burdens. It takes a certain amount of agency to lay
a burden on someone, doesn't it?

Whenever opposite, but equally unflattering, attributes are ascribed to
the same group, I tend to think the person uttering the criticism
doesn't really care about what he's saying, or thinking about what he's
saying, but just wants to say something bad, no matter what it is.

The word for this is bigotry.

What's really sad, in this case, is that blaming the intellectual for
everything that's wrong with the world only effectively blinds people to
the real sources of wrong.
The burdens on our backs -- to the extent that they exist -- are the
product of living in a consumer culture. We have to earn to spend, and
the spending of others allows us to earn. We're like hamsters running
on wheels, and complaining about the people pointing out the spokes is
to greatly miss the point.

Intellectuals don't really run anything but our colleges and
universities. Thank God. Even narrowing down our class of
intellectuals to cultural critics, for that matter, one could say they
produce nothing, do nothing, create nothing. They simply write. And
criticize.

That's the reason I'm glad they're not running things -- you can't build
a society on a critique. But don't underestimate the power of the
critique. Let me offer two examples from Disney movies.

The first is Pinocchio. Pinocchio wanted to be a real boy, but in order
to become one he had to learn not to smoke, drink, and above all, not to
lie. Morality was defined, in that movie, as personal purity, and I
think the movie pretty accurately reflected the culture it sought to
entertain.

Now look at a more recent Disney film: Pocohontas. We have intolerant,
albeit noble, Native Americans at odds with intolerant and greedy
Englishmen. The romantic relationship is the point at which cultural
intolerance is bridged and the sacrifice of the English soldier breaks
down animosity between the two groups. This Disney movie represents a
morality that's primarily directed toward the public sphere, one defined
by tolerance for those different from yourself.

Don't tell me cultural criticism in America over the last 40 years had
nothing to do with this change registered by Disney films. I'm not
saying this switch from Puritan ethics to Marxist is a good thing -- I
like the idea of promoting both personal purity and social ethics. But
I am saying this change is the result of the work "intellectuals"
(whoever you mean by them), and this result is felt across our society
from its laws to its hiring practices to the entertainment industry.
Intellectuals do change how we think about the world.

Like all changes in people, though, it's incremental. It takes time and
is hard to see. It's very easy to think you're not making a difference.

Fish gave up too easily. What's really funny is that I argued with him
about this very point at the MLA conference last December...I said if
you dismiss philosophy as irrelevant, you dismiss the work of literary
critics. Just think about it, I said. No one needs to know literary
theory to enjoy a good book and have some ideas about it. What does the
common reader need us literary critics for? The same arguments you're
making, Mr. Fish, about philosophy anyone else could make about literary
criticism.

Fish's two responses were, "but they won't get any recognition for it,"
and, "FUCK THE COMMON READER." Pretty funny how emphatic he was about
this, right in the middle of a nice, polite meeting of a bunch of
academics :). Gave me a nice laugh. He's a crochety old man. Good for
him. Every time I read something he writes about college
administration, I'm grateful for crotchety old men. Anyway, ok, fuck
the common reader...but don't be surprised if they fuck right back.

Of course the woman writing the article reinforced the old saw about
intellectuals being irrelevant. If she'd listened to any of them, of
course, she'd know how cliche this criticism was...

I guess I'll just have to be content with the smug knowledge that **I**
know just how stupid and unoriginal she was being, even when she
doesn't. Hey...it's not bad being aligned with the intellectuals after
all...

:)

Jim

Robert Pollack wrote:

> . . . anthopocizing . . . .
>
> This, of course, should be anthropocizing.
>
> -robbie
> -
> * Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
> * UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Thu Apr 24 21:31:35 2003