From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Whom Do the Intellectuals Serve?
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 14:45:55 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

There have been some recent discussions in alt.postmodern and
rec.arts.books about the use of impenetrable jargon by 
postmodern theorists, most of whom I suppose would fall into
the category of "intellectuals", although we haven't defined
the term very well.  The t.p.theory thread, as the title line 
may indicate, dovetails well with those discussions, so I'm
cross-posting it.  In previous articles in this thread, 
it's been suggested by some that intellectuals function as
critics of the ruling or dominant class, and by others that
they are servitors of it.

kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) writes:
| I think most "intellectuals", like everybody else, have bread-earning as
| their top priority.  That is, justifying their positions by staying busy,
| getting grants, etc.  To this end most of them engage in what they
| know to be arcane, esoteric and useless (useless in an intellectual as well as
| a practical sense) "research" that look good on paper because those few who
| understand their jargon are doing the same thing!
| 
| Why they (at least the useless part of their work) get funded by society is 
| caused by the indirectness of intentions.  The government, institutions and
| big corporations give money because their constituents (who ultimately
| pay for all this) feel that there should be some such funding "for the
| good of the society."  The govt, institutions and corps know slightly more
| than their constituents as to what work is being done, but they also care
| less about whether the money is spent wisely.

A great many intellectuals, such as the bunch that concocted
the War in Vietnam, do _not_ engage in useless research and
other window-dressing; and their studies are arcane and
esoteric only in the sense that they keep pretty quiet about
their purposes, since their purposes aren't very nice.  When
I was in school in 1960, I was approached by a fellow who
told me that I could make my way in the world quite
advantageously by getting involved in a project that was
going to develop small business ventures in Southeast Asia.
(This was at a prestigious Eastern university where
involvement with cloak-and-dagger stuff was quite a
tradition.)  Naively, I couldn't understand what he was
talking about; the peoples of Southeast Asia are quite
capable of developing small business themselves; they
probably invented it.  It was not until 1964 or so that I
recalled this conversation and understood what kind of
"business" was meant.  So that sort of thing is some of what
intellectuals do.  Others manage the placement of screens
or the arrangement of decor to hide what shouldn't be
seen.

As I think I said elsewhere already, I think that the
production of impenetrable jargon is useful in confusing and
possibly destroying critiques of present political and
cultural structures that arise out of formerly powerless 
categories of people, e.g. women and non-whites.  Many of
these critiques are quite straightforward, and making them
seem difficult or absurd would help those on top stay on
top, including those on top of the academic pyramids.
-- 
Gordon Fitch | gcf@panix.com | uunet!cmcl2!panix!gcf 
*       1238 Blg. Grn. Sta., N.Y., N.Y. 10274      *
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3150 misc.legal:15280 alt.postmodern:2253 alt.censorship:6536