Today’s Intellectuals: Too Obedient?

Today’s Intellectuals: Too Obedient?

Today’s Intellectuals: Too Obedient?

By : Tadween Editors

By Fred Inglis

The Responsibility of Intellectuals
, Noam Chomsky’s classic essay, is now approaching its 50th anniversary. His mighty polemic was written as his country, the US, moved deeper and deeper into national and international crisis. The tonnage of high explosive dropped on Vietnam finally exceeded the entire total of Allied bombs dropped on Europe during the Second World War. The American nation’s response to this horrifying display of brute power was a combustible mixture of more-or‑less approving indifference and, especially in the universities, passionate dissent, ardent opposition and, on the part of some thousands of young men awaiting conscription, the criminal, high-minded and public burning of draft cards.

Chomsky was completely on their side. He joined the famous march on the Pentagon in 1967 and – as elderly academics perhaps now recall with a faint reheating of once-radical blood vessels – was arrested and charged with Norman Mailer while demonstrating alongside Robert Lowell, Father Berrigan and Dr Spock. At the same time as this enactment of his public duty, Chomsky, the leading theoretical linguist in the world, was writing an astounding sequence of lengthy essays, each mustering the requisite and copious machinery of bibliographic reference that the most exacting scholar could demand, variously detailing the policies of the official elite in the Pentagon and the White House as they sought, in the happily chosen phrase of the day, “to bomb Vietnam back into the Stone Age”, a policy more or less fulfilled by Richard Nixon.

In unforgettable prose and with a memorably disdainful manner, Chomsky named countless fellow scholars as time-serving and bien pensant stooges of political power and deathly ideology. He blew apart the vacuous claims to objectivity as the dominant principle of liberal scholarship, and warned the world, with reckless candour, of “the long tradition of naivety and self-righteousness that disfigures our intellectual history”. “The cult of the expert”, he went on, “is both self-serving…and fraudulent”, and in a precept just as necessary and piercing to a minor researcher in healthcare as to Big Dog authors of best-selling modern history, he wrote “it is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies”.

Chomsky was addressing a national crisis, for sure, one in which the young citizens who were then students could be drafted to fight in a hideous, needless war. He named, in the best tradition of truth-telling scholarship, the public officials pursuing the aggression, all of them men and many of them past and future academics – Robert McNamara, McGeorge Bundy, Arthur Schlesinger, Henry Kissinger – for lying, for heedless cruelty, for sheer damnable incompetence. For a present-day British scholar of whatever discipline to go back to these pages – to American Power and the New Mandarins, to At War with Asia, to For Reasons of State – is to be summoned sharply to bear witness to one’s very life principles.

There is presently, for sure, no British national urgency to match the Vietnamese war, which the US fought with such atrocity from the arrival of its first 15,000 “advisers” in 1963 to the moment at which its last-minute helicopters took off from the embassy roof as the North Vietnamese entered Saigon in 1975. There is, however, and quite unmistakably, a British crisis of national wealth that is certain to last as long and to match it for severity and quotidian immediacy, a crisis of public ethics and also of identity, of the answers required to the great existential questions: “Who am I? What is it to be a citizen of this country? How shall I live a decent life? Should I be a patriot? Should I obey my government?”

These questions, whether attended to or not, press upon every academic scholar and teacher: upon this researcher required to make a grant application for a project that her university insists must be finished within three years and generate (that damned verb) at least five research excellence framework papers; upon this tutor squeezed to allow a pass degree to these dismal, worthy, illiterate overseas students for fear that their home government will send their successors elsewhere if too many fail; upon this candidate for promotion whose latest paper is a detailed and full-scale attack upon the fatuities and mendacity of the parent university’s managerial ineptitude.

These are all actual examples. It would be easiest to illustrate the vile deceptions and idiot ideologising of our masters by looking at the pages of the disgraceful Browne report. But the Browne Review is, amazingly, behind us now and irrevocably part of everyday campus life.

However, there is immediately to hand a blog posted by the senior associate of the solicitors hired by the very well-off University of Warwick as it plans the sacking (“headcount reduction”) of “substantial” numbers of staff from the medical and life sciences schools. The firm in question is called SGH Martineau, and is already briefed to prepare the case against senior member of Warwick staff Thomas Docherty, a prominent critic of higher education policy presently suspended for alleged “insubordination”.

SGH Martineau’s senior staff member, one David Browne, wrote with useful and gratifying indiscretion on his blog (happily titled “Going Further and Higher”) that universities may “encounter high performing employees, who, although academically brilliant, have the potential to damage their employer’s brand. This could be through outspoken opinion or general insubordination. Irrespective of how potentially valuable these employees may be to their institutions, the reality is that, in consistently accepting unacceptable behaviour, institutions may be setting dangerous precedents to other employees that such conduct will be accommodated. From a risk perspective, it is also much harder to justify a dismissal, or other sanction, if similar conduct has gone unpunished before.”

In such language we have the serpent of higher education policy in all its Miltonic repulsiveness: blandly assured, lethally menacing, the ruling class accents and insolent categories deployed with military certainty – “outspoken opinion”, “general insubordination”, “unacceptable behaviour”. A clamour of twittering caused its later modification. Nonetheless, heaven knows what the vice-chancellor at Warwick, co-author of that very sound and relevant book Arts of the Political, is doing with the hire of this firm; he at least has the power to be rid of it at once.

These, however, are the accents and these the all-powerful ways of university policy as it has tended since the egregious Keith Joseph first displayed his ignorance of Keynes back in 1981 (“these are not wealth-creating institutions”) with an overnight cut in university funding of 16 per cent. Lord Browne and the mice on his committee were sailing on a tide long since turned towards the rocks.

Academics at large do not entirely lack courage nor a training in critical opposition. But ours is a docile polity and those same academics prove mostly incapable of concerted self-organisation. Large numbers are only too ready to turn away when faced by the serpent and its dreadful, tedious offspring on the management teams, and bend their heads back to their research, sticking their fingers in their ears when the distant bugles sound the danger signal.

All the same, there have, since the hordes of philistines came crowding through the campus gates, been more than a few gallant souls bugling away, even daring to ride in lonely sallies against their enemy. Books being our trade weapons, there have been, these past five years, good books standing out against the towering waves of ideological brutality. We all admire The Spirit Level for its clear argument that radical inequality damages a whole society including its profits; the Skidelskys, father and son, have told us How Much Is Enough; Mary O’Hara has carefully measured the size ofAusterity Bites; David Marquand in a comprehensive curse spoken over Mammon’s Kingdom has added up the whole structure of feeling that teaches consumer excess and a hateful social indifference; Stefan Collini, first into the fray and still unbowed, has counted the cost of our times for the university herself, her custodianship of our pictures of the good society.

Nor have students failed in their duty to be revolting. The high-principled Sussex sit-in and the Manchester student economists who made rowdy objections to the mechanics of a degree course that had nothing to say about the recent unpleasantness – its riot of greed and incompetence – are tokens that conscience has not yet died in the auditorium.

The responsibility of the intellectuals, however, is hardly being met. Social docility, strong convictions of one’s personal impotence, infinite procrastination, plus, one surmises, the regular protestation that people must be able to get on with their proper job – their research and teaching – these excuses and tendencies prevent our noticing that the end of the world is nigh.

So it is likely that the noble and long-standing idea of the university as the redoubt of original and perhaps uncomfortable thought and as the guardian of a nation’s best notions of itself will dissolve and dislimn into a dozen or so busy little enterprises that are narrowly obedient to governmental shopkeepers. Then the slow cataclysm of an elderly and failing economy together with the irresistible destruction of our habitat as nature exacts revenge upon feckless human waste will reduce the citadel of reason to ruins.

Staring-eyed dissidents – Slavoj Žižek here, Ken Loach over there – have been announcing the end of the world for some time, but academic life does not conduce to a sense of urgency. Yet the duty to do serious work is commonly acknowledged in the senior common room. Such work surely should include, for the scientists, say, a careful chronicling of the innumerable signs of global spoliation and their consequences; for the medical doctors, stringent checks on the expiry of pharmacological controls; for the economists, the imagining of a more stable, equal and less corruptible system of capital allocation; for departments of literature and philosophy, the contrivance of a less individualist narrative of emancipation with which to interpret and direct human action.

These visionary gestures have quite small and local application. (They connote, after all, exactly the content of the present Scottish argument.) For we have a national government of quite striking incompetence as well as shameless class partiality. The politics department would be doing its proper business of protecting reason and defending the common good if it used an Economic and Social Research Council grant to tell the tale of the just-cancelled sale of £12 billion worth of student loans that the Office for Budget Irresponsibility had already, with undergraduate eagerness, credited to the chancellor’s account.

But far more important at the present time than giving examples of necessary intellectual tasks is to effect a change of mind, a hardening of ethos. This is the most difficult thing: it is to reshape our commonality, to restore our collaborative nature and reject the fatuous insistence that universities should compete in all their business, as though our common pursuit of those much diminished treasures – truth, goodness, beauty – were not the noblest vocation a man or woman could follow. It would then be the statutorily limited task of the management, from a position of strict subordination, to ensure the flourishing of these common ideals.

My opponents will doubtless reach for the dismissive “rant” to typify this sort of vehement expostulation. Ranting, however, is not without its historical honour and accuracy. In 1647, the leading ranter, Laurence Clarkson, asked of his congregation, “Who are the oppressors, but the nobility and gentry?…your slavery is their liberty, your poverty is their prosperity…have you not chosen oppressors to redeem you from oppression?”

A couple of years later and just down the road in Cobham, Surrey, the Diggers started digging up common land to rescue themselves from impending famine. Gerrard Winstanley told his comrades: “this is the bondage the poor complain of: that they are kept poor by their brethren in a land where there is so much plenty for everyone.”

The collective labours of the university could do worse than begin work with Chomsky in Boston and beside Winstanley on St George’s Hill.

[This article was originally published on
 Times Higher Education.]

  • ALSO BY THIS AUTHOR

    • Now Available at Tadween Publishing in Partnership with Tadamun: "Planning [in] Justice العدالة في التخطيط"

      Now Available at Tadween Publishing in Partnership with Tadamun: "Planning [in] Justice العدالة في التخطيط"

      Tadamun launched the Planning [in] Justice project to study and raise awareness about spatial inequality in the distribution of public resources among various urban areas, and to highlight the institutional causes that reinforce the current conditions in Egypt, especially in the GCR. The Planning [in] Justice project compiled publicly-available data, and data available by request, and utilized Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software to map a variety of indicators—poverty and education levels, access to healthcare facilities, public schools, population density, among other variables—at the neighborhood level. Whereas previous studies on similar poverty and development measures in the CGR have largely been limited to the district level, Planning [in] Justice captures variations in these indicators at the shiyakha—or neighborhood—level. The project also aims to explore the possibilities for developing urban areas, to analyze the cost and return on public investment in underserved urban areas, and to compare this return with investment in new cities and affluent neighborhoods. We have previously published specific articles and briefs about spatial inequality, but in this document we present a more comprehensive analysis of the topic, drawing from our previous more specific publications. It is our hope that the Planning [in] Justice project will provide decision-makers and the general public with a necessary tool to advocate for, develop, and implement more effective and targeted urban policies and programs.

    • Announcing JadMag Issue 7.3 (Jadaliyya in Print)

      Announcing JadMag Issue 7.3 (Jadaliyya in Print)

      In the essay "Beyond Paralyzing Terror: The 'Dark Decade' in the Algerian Hirak, Elizabeth Perego discusses allusions to the "archived past" of the 1990s during the mass mobilizations that began in the country in 2019 and have continued into this year. In this issue's second center-piece essay, Ebshoy Magdy examines narratives around poverty in Egypt in relation to the country's two cash support programs, Takaful and Karama. Additionally, this issue features a bundle of essays contextualizing the Lebanese and Iranian uprisings.

    • Announcing the Syria Quarterly Report (January / February / March 2019) Issue

      Announcing the Syria Quarterly Report (January / February / March 2019) Issue

      Tadween Publishing is excited to announce the newest issue of its project: the Syria Quarterly Report Issue 5 (July/August/September 2019)!

Summer Readings from NEWTON

The New Texts Out Now (NEWTON) page has greatly expanded over the past year, in large part thanks to the recommendations and contributions from many of Jadaliyya’s readers. We would like to provide you with ample summer reading material by reminding you of several new texts that we have featured in recent months. This compilation of works spans a wide range of topics and disciplines by prominent authors in the field of Middle East studies.

We hope this list will be pedagogically useful for readers preparing syllabi for the fall semester, as well as those hoping to learn about new and unique perspectives on the region. To stay up to date with ongoing discussions by scholars and instructors in the field, check out Jadaliyya’s sister organization, Tadween Publishing.

Highlights

NEWTON in Focus: Thinking Through Gender and Sex

NEWTON in Focus: Egypt

NEWTON Author Nergis Ertürk Receives MLA First Book Prize

NEWTON 2012 in Review

This Year’s NEWTONs

New Texts Out Now: Mark Fathi Massoud, Law`s Fragile State: Colonial, Authoritarian, and Humanitarian Legacies in Sudan

New Texts Out Now: Ayça Çubukçu, The Responsibility to Protect: Libya and the Problem of Transnational Solidarity

New Texts Out Now: Louise Cainkar, Global Arab World Migrations and Diasporas

New Texts Out Now: Maya Mikdashi, What is Settler Colonialism? and Sherene Seikaly, Return to the Present

New Texts Out Now: Joel Beinin, Mixing, Separation, and Violence in Urban Spaces and the Rural Frontier in Palestine

New Texts Out Now: Wendy Pearlman, Emigration and the Resilience of Politics in Lebanon

New Texts Out Now: Simon Jackson, Diaspora Politics and Developmental Empire: The Syro-Lebanese at the League of Nations

New Texts Out Now: Charles Tripp, The Power and the People: Paths of Resistance in the Middle East

New Texts Out Now: Chouki El Hamel, Black Morocco: A History of Slavery, Race, and Islam

New Texts Out Now: Adel Iskandar and Bassam Haddad, Mediating the Arab Uprisings

New Texts Out Now: David McMurray and Amanda Ufheil-Somers, The Arab Revolts

New Texts Out Now: Esam Al-Amin, The Arab Awakening Unveiled

New Texts Out Now: Rashid Khalidi, Brokers of Deceit: How the US Has Undermined Peace in the Middle East

New Texts Out Now: Vijay Prashad, The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South

New Texts Out Now: Paul Aarts and Francesco Cavatorta, Civil Society in Syria and Iran

New Texts Out Now: Amr Adly, State Reform and Development in the Middle East: Turkey and Egypt in the Post-Liberalization Era

New Texts Out Now: Rachel Beckles Willson, Orientalism and Musical Mission: Palestine and the West

New Texts Out Now: Ilana Feldman, The Challenge of Categories: UNRWA and the Definition of a "Palestine Refugee"

New Texts Out Now: Jeannie Sowers, Environmental Politics in Egypt: Activists, Experts, and the State

New Texts Out Now: Dina Rizk Khoury, Iraq in Wartime: Soldiering, Martyrdom, and Remembrance

New Texts Out Now: Na`eem Jeenah, Pretending Democracy: Israel, An Ethnocratic State

New Texts Out Now: Sally K. Gallagher, Making Do in Damascus

New Texts Out Now: Natalya Vince, Saintly Grandmothers: Youth Reception and Reinterpretation of the National Past in Contemporary Algeria

New Texts Out Now: January 2013 Back to School Edition

New Texts Out Now: John M. Willis, Unmaking North and South: Cartographies of the Yemeni Past, 1857-1934

New Texts Out Now: Paolo Gerbaudo, Tweets and the Streets: Social Media and Contemporary Activism

New Texts Out Now: Madawi Al-Rasheed, A Most Masculine State: Gender, Politics, and Religion in Saudi Arabia

New Texts Out Now: Noga Efrati, Women in Iraq: Past Meets Present

New Texts Out Now: Nicola Pratt, The Gender Logics of Resistance to the "War on Terror"

New Texts Out Now: Lisa Hajjar, Torture: A Sociology of Violence and Human Rights

New Texts Out Now: Orit Bashkin, New Babylonians: A History of Jews in Modern Iraq

New Texts Out Now: Marwan M. Kraidy, The Revolutionary Body Politic