RE: writ large, for your consumption

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.
Jim

Intellectualization of the people would be a good thing? Education would be
a good thing but not everyone has the leisure or inclination to spend a
large amount of their time in study, reflection, and speculation.
Daniel

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.
Jim

For a contemplative intellectual, you have a knack for reductionism into
left field. Intellectuals don't have to write and speak and hold the same
positions, they just have to have an attitude of superiority disconnected
from reality. Of course, not every single intellectual share this trait but
as generalizations go, it is pretty descriptive of the intellectual
environment.
Daniel

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.
Jim

Running some colleges in most universities, yes. Educating our children?
no. It is one thing for the intellectual to try and saddle everyone with
their particular baggage and quite another to see the effectiveness of this
desire actually discussed. The only ridiculous thing I see is that so many
still insist on their 'load' and struggle like hell to foist it upon
everyone's back and are still so ineffective (not totally lacking in
influence).
Daniel

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?
Jim

It is not about effective or ineffective as if those were the only options.
They have been effective in some aspects, particularly when it comes to
university environments and they continue to push their Brand on wider
society with mixed success. So your whole construct is a false dichotomy.
My enjoyment of the article lay in another direction, but of course that is
at the heart of the old brouhaha.
Daniel

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.
Jim

So Jim, you can't directly defend 'Intellectualism' so the B word is whipped
out, don't deal with what I say, just impute motive, since we know
intellectuals have developed a sure fire method for doing that. (I think
this tactic is called Bulverism).
Daniel

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.
Jim

Who blamed the intellectual for all the world's problems? How very Marx of
you to reduce it all down to consumerism. What is wrong with earning and
spending? Of course, like many worldly ills it is the excess of a thing and
not the thing itself. But couldn't that be Robbie's point, excesses and
extremes? Reason is needed and powerful, but not the only thing. Study,
reflection, and speculation are good things but again not the only ones.
Those who hard sell them at the expense of everything else is suspect.
Daniel

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.
Jim

And that is not a product for consumption, how? Granted, much of it doesn't
have as wide a market as you would like but the last time I checked authors
received royalties from their publications. Oh yeah, Barnes and Noble is a
Sanctuary and not a place of consumption.
Daniel

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.
Jim

At least, finally we agree. Jim, you crack me up, you are not a producer
for consumption but you close your post with a nice bit of produce for the
list to consume. I guess the critic can't help but criticize.
Daniel

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.
Jim

A difference? Does making a difference have intrinsic value like
arithmetic? Doesn't making a difference imply a value system or some kind
of morality and isn't that what all this is really about?
Daniel

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.
Jim

Again we agree on something, are you actually surprised, now, why many
readers have such a low opinion of this sort of thing? Go read the
beginning of this post about attitude.
Daniel

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Tue Apr 29 11:40:55 2003