Showing posts with label Civil society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil society. Show all posts

Saturday, September 21, 2013

The Crisis of Modern Society and the State in the 21st Century and the Necessity of Reinventing the Very Meaning of Politics Itself

 
On Reinventing the Meaning of Politics and What Needs to Be Done
Friday, 20 September 2013
By Henry A Giroux
Truthout | Op-Ed


http://youtu.be/POhQ069ZwHchttp://truth-out.org/public-intellectual-project

On Monday, August 19, 2013 McMaster University Professor Henry Giroux spoke at the Third Ontario Common Front General Assembly. The following are excerpts from his keynote address:


Intolerance of Democratic Protest:

Henry A. Giroux: We live in an era in which there is near-zero tolerance for democratic protest and infinite tolerance for bankers and government embezzlers which effect the lives of millions.

On Student Debt and Generational Warfare:

HG: I can't think of a better way to defuse the possibility among young people of the radical imagination than to place them into so much debt that for the next 20 years all they can basically think about is paying that debt back.

On the Suicidal State:

HG: The power of the megacorporations and financial elite suggests, aggressively promote, failed modes of government and what I want to call a suicidal state. The violence of unnecessary hardship and suffering produced by neoliberal ideology and values are not restricted to the economic realm alone.

Manufactured ignorance is the new reining mode spurred on by a market-driven system that celebrates a passion for consumer goods over a passion for community belonging, the well-being of others and the principles of a democratic society. Ignorance is no longer a liability in neoliberal societies propagating a capitalist imaginary that thrives on the interrelated register of consumption, privatization and depoliticization.

Meanwhile, political illiteracy and religious fundamentalism channel populace waves and racism providing support for an escalating crisis that Axel Honneth has termed the failed sociality characteristic of neoliberal states. Imagine the Rick Santorums of the world standing up in front of public audiences and saying, "The one thing we don't want in the Republican Party," or we can say in Harper's party, "are intellectuals." Of course they don't. They don't want anybody who would possibly make power accountable. Of course they don't. They don't want anybody who believes that learning should be linked to social change. Of course they don't because they believe and understand that people who ask questions are dangerous. Everybody in this room - completely dangerous.

On the Punishing State:

HG: It seems to be that one consequence of this collapse of the public into the private it is not only the undoing of the social bond but also the endless reproduction of the narrow register of individual responsibility as a substitute for any analysis of wider social problems, making it easier to blame the poor, the homeless, the uninsured, the jobless, the disabled and other disadvantaged groups for their problems while reinforcing the merging of a monster society with a punishing state because, don't fool yourself, we all know this. As the social state shrinks, the punishing state grows. They work together. It becomes impossible in my estimation to separate these two. As the state generates more problems by funneling wealth into the hands of fewer people, more devastation by separating economic issues from social costs, it relies on the punishing state.

On the Soft War:

HG: The point that I want to make about the Soft War is this is an educational war. This is a form of public pedagogy on the side of authoritarianism. This is a form of pedagogy that is being waged by corporations because they know that they not only, in a sense, have to extract profits from people, groups and individuals but they also have to stifle the creative impulses of young people.

When I read about the Snowden incident, what caught my eye that was absolutely stunning was there was a general talking about Snowden, and his comment was that the problem with Snowden and his generation is not they they know these new technologies better than we do. The problem is they question authority. I guess the key here is what they get, and what we sometimes don't get, is that the subjects that are going to get produced, the buyers that are going to be mobilized, the notions of agency that are going to be shaped are absolutely essential to neoliberal politics. They're concerned about agents. They want agents who are basically going to do nothing more than mimic the logic of the market. That's what they want. Shut up and buy. Sell and go shopping. We have a major tragedy, for instance, in the United States, and Bush lite says we can deal with this. Go shopping. . . . You can always measure a politician's integrity. What they all say when they are really in trouble is "Go to Disney World." The environment is being polluted, "Go to Disney World." It has become like a mantra for a kind of stupidity which the market takes pride in.

On Aboriginal and Minority Youth Poverty and Incarceration:

HG: In Canada, one child in six lives in poverty, but for aboriginal and immigrant children, the figures rise to 40 and 50 percent, respectively. How else do you respond to that, but that has to be one of the most shameful indexes to mark any society that gives lip service to what we call a democracy.

By all accounts, the rate of incarceration for aboriginal youth, already eight times higher than for non-aboriginal youth, will skyrocket as a result of the Harper government's so-called "Safe Streets and Community Act," which emulates the failed policies of the US system, among other things, strengthening requirements to detain and sentence more youth to custody and juvenile detention centers. Surely, one thing, the ongoing inquest into the tragic suicide of 19-year-old Ashley Smith, who spent 5 years of her life in and out of detention facilities, tells us that incarceration for young people can be equivalent to a death sentence.

On Reinventing the Meaning of Politics and What Needs to Be Done:

HG: I think that one thing that neoliberalism has taught us is that it has a vocabulary, and an infrastructure, and a set of practices that not only do we need to challenge, but we need to reinvent in some very fundamental way the very meaning of politics itself. Something has happened in a neoliberal age. What has happened is that power and politics are now separated. Politics is local. Power is global. The ultrarich, the corporations, they have no allegiance to anyone. They float. But, the political structures that we often find ourselves working in are local and political. While that matters, that's just the beginning. It seems to me that if we are going to make any dent whatsoever, a number of things have got to happen.

One, we have to form alliances with people, not simply on a national level but also on an international level. This war is global. It's global. Until we can guild the global structures that challenge this type of savage cruelty, this type of criminalization, this destruction of all of the basic dignities that matter to allow us to participate in what might be called the promise of a democracy to come, it seems to me we are in big trouble.

Secondly, we need to understand that education is central to the very nature of politics. It seems to me that one of the things we have lost on the left, one of the things that the left, in all of its ideological permutations, seems to have forgotten is that nothing happens until you make something meaningful, in order to make it critical, in order to make it transformative. We have to begin to talk about the alternative public spheres and the formative cultures that are necessary to make that happen. To talk about building platforms immediately, to talk about putting agendas right there up front, to talk about vanguards - to me is a death wish. Until we can raise the consciousness of the people and make them realize that they have an investment in the very struggles that we believe in, we are lost. That is not simply a political project, it is an education project.

It also seems to me that one of the things we have dealt with for a long time - and I'm so proud to be able to be here today and to share in this document that the Ontario Common Front has put together, which I think is a fabulous document. I think to talk about long-term struggles and not immediate satisfaction . . . In my generation, forgive me for this, but we had a saying, "The long march through the institutions." For me that means one thing, one foot in and one foot out, and never two feet in. I'm not going to give up the university to the right-wing, so I have one foot in. I'm not going to give up public schools to the right-wing fundamentalists, so I have one foot in. I'm not going to give up a health care system in which, unlike in the United States, every time I have a treatment for an autoimmune desease I have, which costs $5,000 - in the United States, I'd be bankrupt. I'm not going to let them take that away from you or for me because that is the basis for allowing us to be the kind of agents that we need to be. As soon as they make time a deprivation for us, rather than a luxury, we're screwed.

So it seems to me that we need to fight for the formative cultures and the public spaces in which larger social movements can come together; where rather than deny our differences, we can understand their strengths and their limitations in terms of larger social issues that look at the totality of society, because I'm not just interested in getting rid of racism. I'm interested in getting rid of an authoritarian state as well.

I'm not interested in just getting rid of economic injustices. I'm also interested in creating the kind of life in which people have access to all the goods that they need so that their dignity is intact in ways that allow them to fulfill the promise of what it means to be alive and to live with dignity as truly an agent. I am also concerned as we all are, about not just an economic rationality that is destructive and cruel, but I am also concerned about a culture of cruelty in which all forms of social dependency are not just seen as something to be outlawed but are actually seen as a pathology.

We live at a time when - there is something about this system, unlike any other system that I have seen in my lifetime, which produces a culture that is so cruel, so pathological in its hatred of the other, so, how might you say it, antidemocratic in its disregard for social dependencies that it represents the worst form of authoritarianism. It's authoritarianism with a smile. You know, a happy day. Enjoy yourself. Have a nice day, but you're just going to do it alone. Until we can resurrect the sense of democratic community and responsibility, until we can talk about education being linked to social change, until we talk about education that, in a fundamental way, takes the dreams and the voices of young people seriously, provides the conditions for teachers and those in other cultural spheres - artists and intellectuals - be able to work with dignity, I think we're in trouble.

Thank you.

Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

HENRY A. GIROUX

Henry A. Giroux currently holds the Global TV Network Chair Professorship at McMaster University in the English and Cultural Studies Department and a Distinguished Visiting Professorship at Ryerson University. His most recent books include: On Critical Pedagogy (Continuum, 2011), Twilight of the Social: Resurgent Publics in the Age of Disposability (Paradigm 2012), Disposable Youth: Racialized Memories and the Culture of Cruelty (Routledge 2012), Youth in Revolt: Reclaiming a Democratic Future (Paradigm 2013), and The Educational Deficit and the War on Youth (Monthly Review Press, 2013), America's Disimagination Machine (City Lights) and Higher Education After Neoliberalism (Haymarket) will be published in 2014). Giroux is also a member of Truthout's Board of Directors. His web site is www.henryagiroux.com.

http://truth-out.org/public-intellectual-project

RELATED STORIES:

Corporate America's War on Political Transparency
By Robert Weissman, Public Citizen | News Analysis
Right-Wing "Nonprofit" Religious Groups and Koch Brothers Team Up to Target Voters
By Zach Roberts, Truthout | Report
Austerity Can Kill You - Literally
By Julien Mercille, Truthout | News Analysis



http://truth-out.org/public-intellectual-project

The Public Intellectual
Truthout | Series


Within the last few decades, the emergence of public intellectuals as important cultural and social critics has raised fundamental questions not only about the social function of academics, but also about the connection between higher education and public life, between academic work and the major issues shaping the broader society. Truthout's Public Intellectual Project will provide progressive academics with an opportunity to address a number of important social issues in a language that is both rigorous and accessible. All too often, academics produce work that is either too abstract for a generally informed public, or they separate their scholarship from the myriad of issues and contemporary problems that shape everyday life in the United States and abroad.

The Public Intellectual Project will solicit and publish work from both younger academics who have not yet ventured into the public realm to address major social concerns, and from those scholars who are already actively involved in speaking to multiple audiences about serious social issues. The project is designed to provide a platform for the general public to think carefully about a range of social problems that affect their lives. It will also allow a generation of scholars to reflect on their own intellectual practices, discourses and understanding of what it might mean to embrace their role as public intellectuals.


Articles by Henry A. Giroux
Henry A. Giroux

Articles by Other Authors in the Public Intellectual Project


Seth Adler
Ian Angus
Stanley Aronowitz
Salvatore Babones
Zygmunt Bauman
Carol Becker
Dr. Cynthia Boaz
Megan Boler
Noam Chomsky
David L. Clark
Simon Dawes
Anthony DiMaggio
Cary Fraser
Rosa-Linda Fregoso
Susan Searls Giroux
Lewis R. Gordon
George Lakoff
Jesse Lemisch
Richard Lichtman
Peter Mayo
Peter McLaren
Joseph Natoli
Tolu Olorunda
David Palumbo-Liu
Michael A. Peters
Grace Pollock
Chronis Polychroniou
Roberto Cintli Rodriguez
Kenneth J. Saltman
Martha Sorren
Leslie Thatcher
Kelley B. Vlahos
Danny Weil
Jan Widacki



http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=4327%3Athe-public-intellectual-henry-a-giroux

2013 Articles by Henry A. Giroux:


On Reinventing the Meaning of Politics and What Needs to Be Done
By Henry A Giroux, Truthout | Op-Ed
Friday, 20 September 2013

Henry A. Giroux: Hope in a Time of Permanent War
By Henry A. Giroux, Truthout | Opinion
Wednesday, 04 September 2013

Truthout TV Interviews Henry A. Giroux: When Schools Become Dead Zones of the Imagination
By Ted Asregadoo, Truthout | Video Interview
Sunday, 25 August 2013

When Schools Become Dead Zones of the Imagination: A Critical Pedagogy Manifesto
By Henry A. Giroux, Truthout
Tuesday, 13 August 2013

The Violence of Organized Forgetting
By Henry A. Giroux, Truthout | Op-Ed
Monday, 22 July 2013

The Educational Deficit and the War on Youth: An Interview with Henry A. Giroux
Tuesday, 18 June 2013
By Leslie Thatcher, Truthout | Interview

Marching in Chicago: Resisting Rahm Emanuel's Neoliberal Savagery
Monday 20 May 2013
By Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis

Lil Wayne's Lyrical Fascism
By Henry A. Giroux, Truthout | Op-Ed
Friday, 12 April 2013

Angela Davis, Freedom and the Politics of Higher Education
Henry A Giroux, Truthout | Op-Ed
Tuesday, 09 April 2013

Neoliberalism and the Politics of Higher Education: An Interview With Henry A. Giroux
By C.J. Polychroniou, Truthout | Interview
Tuesday, 26 March 2013

Mad Stories and the Politics of Disposability in Paul Ryan's World
By Henry A Giroux, Truthout | Op-Ed
Thursday, 14 March 2013

The Politics of Disimagination and the Pathologies of Power
By Henry A Giroux, Truthout | News Analysis
Wednesday, 27 February 2013

The Shooting Gallery: Obama and the Vanishing Point of Democracy
By Henry A Giroux, Truthout | Op-Ed
Tuesday, 12 February 2013

The Necessity of Critical Pedagogy: An Interview With Henry Giroux
By Jose Maria Barroso Tristan, Global Education Magazine | Interview
Wednesday, 06 February 2013

Criminalizing Dissent and Punishing Occupy Protesters: Introduction to Henry Giroux's "Youth in Revolt"
By Henry A Giroux, Truthout | Book Excerpt
Thursday, 31 January 2013

The New Extremism and Politics of Distraction in the Age of Austerity
By Henry A Giroux, Truthout | Op-Ed
Tuesday, 22 January 2013

Violence is Deeply Rooted in American Culture: An Interview With Henry A. Giroux
Thursday, 17 January 2013
By C.J. Polychroniou, Truthout | Interview

2012 Articles by Henry A. Giroux:

The War Against Teachers as Public Intellectuals in Dark Times
By Henry A. Giroux, Truthout | Op-Ed
Monday, 17 December 2012

Hurricane Sandy in the Age of Disposability and Neoliberal Terror
By Henry A Giroux, Truthout | Op-Ed
Monday, 03 December 2012
Henry A Giroux | War on Youth
By Henry A Giroux, Histories of Violence Project | Interview and Video
Wednesday, 28 November 2012
Henry A. Giroux: Why Don't Americans Care About Democracy at Home?
By Henry A Giroux, Truthout | News Analysis
Tuesday, 02 October 2012

On the Significance of the Chicago Teachers Strike: Bearing Witness to, and Challenging Democracy's Demise
By Henry A Giroux, Truthout | News Analysis
Thursday, 13 September 2012

Days of Rage: The Quebec Student Protest Movement and the New Social Awakening
Tuesday 28 August 2012
By: Henry A Giroux, Truthout | Op-Ed

Taking Henry Giroux's Borderless Pedagogy to Our Institutions of Higher Learning
Saturday, 04 August 2012
By Michael Ortiz, Truthout | Op-Ed

Henry A. Giroux: Colorado Shooting Is About More Than Gun Culture
Monday 23 July 2012
By: Henry A Giroux, Truthout | News Analysis

Review of Henry Giroux's Twilight of the Social: Resurgent Publics in the Age of Disposability
Friday, 20 July 2012
By Alexander Means, Truthout | Book Review

From Penn State to JPMorgan Chase and Barclay: Destroying Higher Education, Savaging Children and Extinguishing Democracy
Friday, 13 July 2012
By Henry A Giroux, Truthout | Op-Ed

Henry A. Giroux | Beyond the Politics of the Big Lie: The Education Deficit and the New Authoritarianism
Tuesday, 19 June 2012
by: Henry A Giroux, Truthout | Op-Ed
Violence, USA: An Interview with Henry A. Giroux
Monday, 07 May 2012
by: Henry A. Giroux and Michael Slane, Pacific Standard | Interview
Violence, USA: The Warfare State and the Brutalizing of Everyday Life
Wednesday, 02 May 2012
by: Henry A. Giroux, Truthout | Op-Ed
Hoodie Politics: Trayvon Martin and Racist Violence in Post-Racial America
Monday, 02 April 2012
by Henry A. Giroux, Truthout | News Analysis
Gated Intellectuals and Ignorance in Political Life: Toward a Borderless Pedagogy in the Occupy Movement
Monday 19 March 2012
By: Henry A. Giroux, Truthout | Op-Ed
Youth in Revolt: The Plague of State-Sponsored Violence
Tuesday 13 March 2012
by: Henry A. Giroux, Truthout | Op-Ed
The Scorched-Earth Politics of America's Four Fundamentalisms
Tuesday 6 March 2012
by: Henry A. Giroux, Truthout | Op-Ed
Dangerous Pedagogy in the Age of Casino Capitalism and Religious Fundamentalism
Wednesday 29 February 2012
by: Henry A. Giroux, Truthout | News Analysis
Why Teaching People to Think for Themselves Is Repugnant to Religious Zealots and Rick Santorum
Wednesday 22 February 2012
by: Henry A. Giroux, Truthout | Op-Ed
Book Burning in Arizona
Tuesday 7 February 2012
by: Henry A. Giroux, Truthout | News Analysis
Remembering Etta James
Saturday 21 January 2012
by: Henry A. Giroux, Truthout | Op-Ed
Universities Gone Wild: Big Money, Big Sports and Scandalous Abuse at Penn State
Thursday 5 January 2011
by: Henry A. Giroux and Susan Searls Giroux, Truthout | Op-Ed
2011 Articles by Henry A. Giroux
Why Faculty Should Join Occupy Movement Protesters on College Campuses
Monday 19 December 2011
by: Henry A. Giroux, Truthout | Op-Ed
Occupy Wall Street's Battle Against American-Style Authoritarianism
Tuesday 25 October 2011
by: Henry A. Giroux, Truthout | News Analysis
Got Class Warfare? Occupy Wall Street Now!
Thursday 6 October 2011
by: Henry A. Giroux, Truthout | Op-Ed
Corporate Media and Larry Summers Team Up to Gut Public Education: Beyond Education for Illiteracy, Vulgarity and a Culture of Cruelty
Tuesday 27 September 2011
by: Henry A. Giroux, Truthout | Op-Ed
Counter-Memory and the Politics of Loss After 9/11
Friday 9 September 2011
by: Henry A. Giroux, Truthout | Op-Ed
Disney, Militarization and the National Security State After 9/11
Tuesday 23 August 2011
by: Henry A. Giroux and Grace Pollock, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. | Book Excerpt
Breivik's Fundamentalist War on Politics, and Ours
Wednesday 3 August 2011
by: Henry A. Giroux, Truthout | News Analysis
From Benetton to Murdoch: The Culture of Money, Shock and Schlock
Wednesday 27 July 2011
by: Henry A. Giroux, Truthout | Op-Ed
Reveling in the Pain of Others: Moral Degeneracy and Violence in the "Kill Team" Photos
Monday 20 June 2011
by: Henry A. Giroux, Truthout | News Analysis
Zombie Politics: Dangerous Authoritarianism or Shrinking Democracy - Part II
Thursday 2 June 2011
by: Henry A. Giroux, Peter Lang Publishing Group | Book Excerpt
Zombie Politics, Democracy and the Threat of Authoritarianism - Part I
Wednesday 1 June 2012
by: Henry A. Giroux, Peter Lang Publishing Group | Book Excerpt
Henry Giroux | American Democracy Beyond Casino Capitalism and the Torture State
Monday 16 May 2011
by: Henry A. Giroux, Truthout
From "Morning in America" to the Nightmare on Main Street (w/audio interview from Santa Fe Public Radio)
Tuesday 08 March 2011
by: Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
Left Behind? American Youth and the Global Fight for Democracy
Monday 28 February 2011
by: Henry A. Giroux, Truthout | Op-Ed
Torturing Democracy
Tuesday 08 February 2011
by: Henry A. Giroux, Paradigm Press | Book Excerpt
Beyond the Swindle of the Corporate University: Higher Education in the Service of Democracy
Tuesday 18 January 2011
by: Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
In the Twilight of the Social State: Rethinking Walter Benjamin's Angel of History
Tuesday 04 January 2011
by Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
Also Listen: Radio Interview With Henry Giroux
2010 Articles by Henry A. Giroux
Lessons to Be Learned From Paulo Freire as Education Is Being Taken Over by the Mega Rich
Tuesday 23 November 2010
by: Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
Living in the Age of Imposed Amnesia: The Eclipse of Democratic Formative Culture
Tuesday 16 November 2010
by: Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
Business Culture and the Death of Public Education: The Triumph of Management Over Leadership
Friday 12 November 2010
by: Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
Farewell Mon Amour: Prospects on Democracy's Electoral Defeat
Tuesday 26 October 2010
by: Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
When Generosity Hurts: Bill Gates, Public School Teachers and the Politics of Humiliation
Tuesday 05 October 2010
by: Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
Memories of Hope in the Age of Disposability
Tuesday 28 September 2010
by: Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
Racialized Memories and Class Identities - Thinking About Glenn Beck's and Rush Limbaugh's America
Tuesday 07 September 2010
by: Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
States of Paralysis: America's Surrender to the Spectacle of Terror
Tuesday 17 August 2010
by: Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
How Disney Magic and the Corporate Media Shape Youth Identity in the Digital Age
Wednesday 04 August 2010
by: Henry Giroux and Grace Pollock | Op-Ed
The Disappearing Intellectual in the Age of Economic Darwinism
Monday 12 July 2010
by: Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
Part III: Chartering Disaster: Why Duncan's Corporate-Based Schools Can't Deliver an Education That Matters
Monday 21 June 2010
by: Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Feature
Part II: Teachers Without Jobs and Education Without Hope: Beyond Bailouts and the Fetish of the Measurement Trap
Tuesday 08 June 2010
by: Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Feature
Revenge of the Zombies: Palin, Beck, Limbaugh and the Return of Dark Times
Wednesday 02 June 2010
by: Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
Part I: Dumbing Down Teachers: Attacking Colleges of Education in the Name of Reform
Tuesday 25 May 2010
by: Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
In Defense of Public School Teachers in a Time of Crisis
Wednesday 14 April 2010
by: Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
A Society Consumed by Locusts: Youth in the Age of Moral and Political Plagues
Monday 05 April 2010
by: Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
On Pop Clarity: Public Intellectuals and the Crisis of Language
Wednesday 24 March 2010
by: Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
Winter in America: Democracy Gone Rogue
Thursday 04 March 2010
by: Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
Interview with Henry A. Giroux on Public Education, Youth and US Society Today
Thursday 04 March 2010
by: Kris Welch | Living Room | KPFA
Henry A. Giroux on His Book "Youth in a Suspect Society: Democracy or Disposability?"
Monday 25 January 2010
by: Henry A. Giroux, rorotoko.com | Interview
Beyond Bailouts: On the Politics of Education After Neoliberalism
Wednesday 31 December 2008
by: Henry A. Giroux and Susan Searls Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Obama's Betrayal of Public Education? Arne Duncan and the Corporate Model of Schooling
Wednesday 17 December 2008
by: Henry A. Giroux and Kenneth Saltman, t r u t h o u t | Perspective
War Talk, the Death of the Social, and Disappearing Children: A Lesson for Obama
Tuesday 16 December 2008
by: Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Disposable Youth in a Suspect Society: A Challenge for the Obama Administration
Tuesday 25 November 2008
by: Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Against the Militarized Academy
Thursday 20 November 2008
by: Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Henry Giroux | Obama and the Promise of Education
Sunday 16 November 2008
by: Henry Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

HENRY A. GIROUX

Henry A. Giroux currently holds the Global TV Network Chair Professorship at McMaster University in the English and Cultural Studies Department and a Distinguished Visiting Professorship at Ryerson University. His most recent books include: On Critical Pedagogy (Continuum, 2011), Twilight of the Social: Resurgent Publics in the Age of Disposability (Paradigm 2012), Disposable Youth: Racialized Memories and the Culture of Cruelty (Routledge 2012), Youth in Revolt: Reclaiming a Democratic Future (Paradigm 2013), and The Educational Deficit and the War on Youth (Monthly Review Press, 2013), America's Disimagination Machine (City Lights) and Higher Education After Neoliberalism (Haymarket) will be published in 2014). Giroux is also a member of Truthout's Board of Directors. His web site is www.henryagiroux.com.


Sunday, April 4, 2010

Chris Hedges On the Ominous Drift of the U.S. Toward Totalitarianism


http://www.alternet.org/news/146226

All,

As usual Chris Hedges does a razor sharp analysis of this society rooted in a sober and logical critique and realistic assessment of the effects of the actual political economy and culture governing the United States today. He is warning us of what actually looms on the immediate social horizon if we all don't properly respond to the massive crisis facing us at this very moment. What is even more disturbing is that while not every aspect of his theoretical perspective is absolutely correct on the particulars, I know his general analysis is still essentially accurate--and so do you...

Kofi

Photo Credit: cometstarmoon

Hedges: Is America Yearning for Fascism?

We can laugh at the desperate people who threaten violence against elected officials. But they are not the fools. We are.

Chris Hedges
March 31, 2010
Alternet


This article first appeared on TruthDig.

The language of violence always presages violence. I watched it in war after war from Latin America to the Balkans. The impoverishment of a working class and the snuffing out of hope and opportunity always produce angry mobs ready to kill and be killed. A bankrupt, liberal elite, which proves ineffectual against the rich and the criminal, always gets swept aside, in times of economic collapse, before thugs and demagogues emerge to play to the passions of the crowd. I have seen this drama. I know each act. I know how it ends. I have heard it in other tongues in other lands. I recognize the same stock characters, the buffoons, charlatans and fools, the same confused crowds and the same impotent and despised liberal class that deserves the hatred it engenders.

"We are ruled not by two parties but one party," Cynthia McKinney, who ran for president on the Green Party ticket, told me. "It is the party of money and war. Our country has been hijacked. And we have to take the country away from those who have hijacked it. The only question now is whose revolution gets funded."

The Democrats and their liberal apologists are so oblivious to the profound personal and economic despair sweeping through this country that they think offering unemployed people the right to keep their unemployed children on their nonexistent health care policies is a step forward. They think that passing a jobs bill that will give tax credits to corporations is a rational response to an unemployment rate that is, in real terms, close to 20 percent. They think that making ordinary Americans, one in eight of whom depends on food stamps to eat, fork over trillions in taxpayer dollars to pay for the crimes of Wall Street and war is acceptable. They think that the refusal to save the estimated 2.4 million people who will be forced out of their homes by foreclosure this year is justified by the bloodless language of fiscal austerity. The message is clear. Laws do not apply to the power elite. Our government does not work. And the longer we stand by and do nothing, the longer we refuse to embrace and recognize the legitimate rage of the working class, the faster we will see our anemic democracy die.

The unraveling of America mirrors the unraveling of Yugoslavia. The Balkan war was not caused by ancient ethnic hatreds. It was caused by the economic collapse of Yugoslavia. The petty criminals and goons who took power harnessed the anger and despair of the unemployed and the desperate. They singled out convenient scapegoats from ethnic Croats to Muslims to Albanians to Gypsies. They set in motion movements that unleashed a feeding frenzy leading to war and self-immolation. There is little difference between the ludicrous would-be poet Radovan Karadzic, who was a figure of ridicule in Sarajevo before the war, and the moronic Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin. There is little difference between the Oath Keepers and the Serbian militias. We can laugh at these people, but they are not the fools. We are.

The longer we appeal to the Democrats, who are servants of corporate interests, the more stupid and ineffectual we become. Sixty-one percent of Americans believe the country is in decline, according to a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, and they are right. Only 25 percent of those polled said the government can be trusted to protect the interests of the American people. If we do not embrace this outrage and distrust as our own it will be expressed through a terrifying right-wing backlash.

"It is time for us to stop talking about right and left," McKinney told me. "The old political paradigm that serves the interests of the people who put us in this predicament will not be the paradigm that gets us out of this. I am a child of the South. Janet Napolitano tells me I need to be afraid of people who are labeled white supremacists but I was raised around white supremacists. I am not afraid of white supremacists. I am concerned about my own government. The Patriot Act did not come from the white supremacists, it came from the White House and Congress. Citizens United did not come from white supremacists, it came from the Supreme Court. Our problem is a problem of governance. I am willing to reach across traditional barriers that have been skillfully constructed by people who benefit from the way the system is organized."

We are bound to a party that has betrayed every principle we claim to espouse, from universal health care to an end to our permanent war economy, to a demand for quality and affordable public education, to a concern for the jobs of the working class. And the hatred expressed within right-wing movements for the college-educated elite, who created or at least did nothing to halt the financial debacle, is not misplaced. Our educated elite, wallowing in self-righteousness, wasted its time in the boutique activism of political correctness as tens of millions of workers lost their jobs. The shouting of racist and bigoted words at black and gay members of Congress, the spitting on a black member of the House, the tossing of bricks through the windows of legislators’ offices, are part of the language of rebellion. It is as much a revolt against the educated elite as it is against the government. The blame lies with us. We created the monster.

When someone like Palin posts a map with cross hairs on the districts of Democrats, when she says “Don’t Retreat, Instead -- RELOAD!” there are desperate people cleaning their weapons who listen. When Christian fascists stand in the pulpits of megachurches and denounce Barack Obama as the Antichrist, there are messianic believers who listen. When a Republican lawmaker shouts “baby killer” at Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak, there are violent extremists who see the mission of saving the unborn as a sacred duty. They have little left to lose. We made sure of that. And the violence they inflict is an expression of the violence they endure.

These movements are not yet full-blown fascist movements. They do not openly call for the extermination of ethnic or religious groups. They do not openly advocate violence. But, as I was told by Fritz Stern, a scholar of fascism who has written about the origins of Nazism, “In Germany there was a yearning for fascism before fascism was invented.” It is the yearning that we now see, and it is dangerous. If we do not immediately reincorporate the unemployed and the poor back into the economy, giving them jobs and relief from crippling debt, then the nascent racism and violence that are leaping up around the edges of American society will become a full-blown conflagration.

Left unchecked, the hatred for radical Islam will transform itself into a hatred for Muslims. The hatred for undocumented workers will become a hatred for Mexicans and Central Americans. The hatred for those not defined by this largely white movement as American patriots will become a hatred for African-Americans. The hatred for liberals will morph into a hatred for all democratic institutions, from universities to government agencies to the press. Our continued impotence and cowardice, our refusal to articulate this anger and stand up in open defiance to the Democrats and the Republicans, will see us swept aside for an age of terror and blood.


Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, is a senior fellow at the Nation Institute. He writes a regular column for TruthDig every Monday. His latest book is Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle (Nation Books, 2009)

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Henry A. Giroux On Public Intellectuals, Language, Public Education, and The State

http://www.truthout.org/on-pop-clarity-public-intellectuals-and-crisis-language57950

All,

Another penetrating and insightful analysis of modern civil society and the parallel complexities and critical challenges of public education and socially based intellectual activity in the United States today by educator, cultural critic, social theorist, activist, and major public intellectual, Henry A. Giroux...

Kofi


On Pop Clarity: Public Intellectuals and the Crisis of Language
24 March 2010
by Henry A. Giroux

t r u t h o u t | Op-ed



It is nearly impossible to become an educated person in a country so distrustful of the independent mind.
- James Baldwin

The presupposition that academics no longer function as critical public intellectuals willing to connect their knowledge and expertise to larger public issues is now pervasive. Many factors have contributed to this alleged withdrawal from speaking to public issues, ranging from the demands of academic professionalism and the suppression of dissent to a simple lack of time to address such work. What is indisputable is that the voices of progressive academics have become increasingly irrelevant when it comes to assuming the role of engaged intellectuals interested in sharing their ideas, research and policy recommendations with a broader public. All the better for those neoliberal and conservative critics, who insist that academics must remain neutral, apolitical and professional, disavowing that politics has a place in the classroom or in the pursuit of research that speaks to broader public concerns. Sadly, the most pronounced voices critical of academics as public intellectuals come from the general public (who may or may not agree with right-wing portrayals of the university as a hotbed of left totalitarianism), who unite in their dismissal of ivory tower elites for speaking and writing in a discourse that is as arcane as it is irrelevant.

In what follows, I support three increasingly unpopular positions. First, I argue that academics should assume the role of critical public intellectuals. Second, we must repudiate the popular assumption that clarity is the ultimate litmus test to gauge whether a writer has successfully engaged a general educated audience. In this regard, I insist that the appeal to clarity has become an ideological smokescreen for a notion of common sense and "simplicity" that have become excuses for abusing language as a marker of the educated mind. Third, I argue that public intellectuals need to take matters of accessibility seriously in order to combine theoretical rigor with their efforts to communicate forcefully and intelligibly to a larger public about the most pressing matters of the day. In short, I want to scramble the opposition between the work of public intellectuals and the alleged simplicity of clarity. The issue is not one or the other - a choice between a firewall of convoluted discourse or a frictionless discourse purged of complexity - but rather the challenge for public intellectuals to address important social issues by writing in a language that is accessible without sacrificing theoretical rigor. Underlying this challenge is a larger political project in which public intellectuals have a responsibility to share a commitment to language as a site of experimentation, power, struggle and hope in the interests of building larger democratically inspired social movements.

During the last 30 years, a rising generation of intellectuals within higher education unsettled the status quo, even by staid academic standards, by writing in a theoretical style that was at odds with the traditional convention of writing in a language that was clear, jargon-free and generalist. With the turn to high theory, close textual reading and a commitment to the instability and multiplicity of meaning in the university, proponents of post-structuralism, deconstruction, literary theory and postmodernism wrote in a language that was indeed specialized, theoretically dense and highly opaque. Yet, this diverse body of scholarship was an attempt to expand the possibilities of theory and politics within new and more complex registers of meaning, writing and criticism that undercut the totalizing, often authoritarian logics, of modernism. It was also a discourse that clashed head on with the long tradition of anti-intellectualism in the United States that worked to devalue important theoretical and social issues.[1]

As the new theoretical discourses took hold in academia, a resurgence of anti-intellectualism took place outside of its walls and inundated the country with fresh energy as Ronald Reagan assumed the presidency in 1980. Anxiously insistent triumphalism was in - coupled with a growing mood of conformity. The new orthodoxy wrapped itself in the cult of individualism and personal responsibility - freeing its advocates from any sense of social obligation and engagement with larger social forces that animated the political movements of the 1960s. As Noam Chomsky pointed out, at the heart of Reagan's uplifting call to remake America was a market-driven ideology designed "to ensure that isolated individuals face concentrated state and private power alone, without the support of an organizational structure that can assist them in thinking for themselves or entering into meaningful political action and with few avenues for public expression of fact or analysis that might challenge approved doctrine."[2] Participating in the heady optimism that suffused Reaganite rhetoric came at considerable intellectual cost. Only "adherence to doctrinal truth," as Chomsky concluded, "confers substantial reward: not only acceptance within the system of power and a ready path to privilege, but also the inestimable advantage of freedom from the onerous demands of thought, inquiry and argument."[3] Against Reagan's carefully crafted persona of strong masculinity, decisiveness and middle brow wit culled from his early Hollywood days, intellectuals were cast in the role of radical, if not communist, subversives, or dithering eggheads incapable of effective action. The notion that important social problems required a more complex language or careful analytic accounting in order to render them with precision and accessibility was dismissed as a plunge into unintelligibility.

Questioning authority was now a symptom, a bad hangover from the alleged anti-Americanism of the 1960s, and the long period of dissent and opposition that had marked the period was viewed by many politicians and conservatives as a disease eating away at the body politic. As the state was increasingly hollowed out and militarized, critical public spheres were commercialized or made to disappear altogether. Equally onerous, the mainstream media increasingly became an echo chamber for corporate values and a harsh form of economic neo-Darwinism. Under the growing influence of a corporate-dominated cultural apparatus producing right-wing public pedagogies, civil discourse degenerated into cheap advertising copy, promulgated by an expanding celebrity culture and its consumerist dream world. Or, it became a nonstop avalanche of vicious soundbite for the new class of conservative talking heads that dominated the mainstream media aimed at denigrating all things public. Attempting to break through this citadel of linguistic conformity, many progressive academics hoped to raise the intellectual bar in order to engage complex ideas that challenged the attack on critical thought and democratic political culture that was sweeping across the country - finding its ultimate resting place in the administration of George W. Bush.

The turn toward critical cultural analysis and other forms of theory in the academy was inspired by the recognition that new ideas often require different terms and that such writing, while difficult, was necessary to expose the appeal to common sense and totalizing authoritarian narratives that the Reaganites valued. The deepening complexity of that theoretical turn produced opposition both within and outside of the academy as a strange coalition of conservatives, liberals and some Marxists found common ground in arguing that clarity was the paramount issue in privileging writing as a form of political and cultural expression. Some charges wee not entirely without merit. Writers such as Russell Jacoby warned, "social critics against the danger of yielding to a new Latin, a new scholasticism insulated from the larger public."[4] Benn Agger suggested that theory itself should be dismissed when "it courts incomprehensibility" and, like much academic writing, "fails to invite dialogue, instead reporting itself as an objective account purged of authorial intentionality, perspective, passion."[5] But by the beginning of the 21st century, the critique of difficult and complex language degenerated into a full-court effort at eradication, similar to what one would expect when governments mobilize to tackle the spread of a deadly virus. The journal Philosophy and Literature initiated an annual Bad Writing Contest, offering "prizes" to some of the country's top scholars. One Internet site shocked its horrified readership with examples of a "post-modern" essay, "replete with bloated jargon and incomprehensible sentence structure, every time someone log[ged] onto it."[6]

In one particularly instructive case, the highly regarded philosopher Judith Butler was the target of a widely read piece of rhetorical overkill by Martha Nussbaum, who insisted that Butler's dense specialized language not only revealed a deeply disturbing disengagement from a nonacademic public but also "a loss of a sense of public commitment."[7] According to Nussbaum, Butler was a prime example of a trend that found many academics turning away from practical politics by hiding behind a firewall of jargon that offered little hope of addressing oppressive structures of power while simultaneously producing "a dangerous quietism."[8] Symptomatically dismissive of Butler's radicalism, Nussbaum's call for intellectuals not to mistake symbolic gestures for political change was not unreasonable. But the real value of her statement lies not in its generalized attack on abstract theories or complex language, but in her call for intellectuals to take the issue of public commitment seriously (provided, for her, that it stay within the limits of liberal discourse) and to recognize that the issue of accessibility should be valued by academics in reaching wider audiences.

Butler, for her part, has responded to this dismissal by arguing that scholarship that strives to be clear often "serves to shut down thought" and that part of being an intellectual demands "working hard on difficult texts." She also insisted, "learning how to deal with difficult language is essential for developing a critical attitude towards the world."[9] For Butler, there is no such thing as a transparent language that can ignore various contexts, audiences and modes of intervention. More significantly, she suggested that what is often at stake in the attack on complex language as merely "jargon" is both the assumption that criticism is destructive and the fear of "opening up the possibility of questioning what our assumptions are and [the risk of living] in the anxiety of that questioning without closing it down too quickly."[10] Perhaps, not wanting to side step this important insight, Butler did not mention what Nussbaum willfully ignores, the fact that Butler does write for multiple audiences and that her prose is often oriented to fit the uniqueness of specific groups of readers. Butler has written in both public prose and academic discourse and she always addresses important public issues.[11] Hence, the attack on Butler appears both overstated and a misrepresentation of the important work that she does.

Russell Jacoby expanded the debate about the use of arcane language by tying it to the loss of the very conditions for public intellectuals to flourish in the United States. In his book "The Last Intellectuals," Jacoby recalled fondly the writers associated with The Partisan Review as well as writers such as C. Wright Mills, Murray Bookchin and Edmund Wilson, among other incisive theorists of an earlier era. According to Jacoby, these writers achieved the status of public intellectuals, who wrote not only for academic journals, but also for broader public audiences. He admired their writing for refusing arcane language or a kind of quaint scholasticism. Such work did not sacrifice intellectual rigor in order to reach a general and educated reader. Public prose mattered for them, but not at the expense of theory, critical analysis and sometimes difficult language. Rather than lower the bar of intelligent communication in the name of clarity, they elevated it by offering complex thoughts in an accessible public discourse. To be sure, this generation of public intellectuals lived at a different time and worked under different conditions. Many of them drew from a highly heterogeneous and more questioning culture, were not dependent on jobs located in the academy, made a decent salary from their publications alone and engaged a polity that was not seduced by the new media, the imposition of multitasking in a time-deprived world or the solipsistic gratification that too often comes with blogging.

I think it is fair to say that a different notion of reading and literacy, along with the institutions that supported it, dominated the first half of the 20th century. The notion of the public intellectual was not marginalized, and such writers engaged in ongoing public conversations about political and cultural issues that were of great social importance. These intellectuals spoke to more than one type of audience and were able to comment critically and broadly on a number of issues. To be a public intellectual, you had to be a particularly attentive student of society and the problems it faced and you had to take risks by intervening in ongoing public conversations that disrupted the powerful interests that shape common sense in efforts to change the nature of the debate. Such intellectuals exemplified a mode of writing and political literacy that refused the instinctive knee-jerk reflex of privileging plain speak over complexity. Clarity today too often legitimates not only simplistic writing, but an absence of rigorous analytic thought. Clarity, with its appeal to simplicity and common sense has become an excuse for abusing language as a marker of the educated mind. Public intellectuals in the past achieved complexity and accessibility in their writing for nonacademic audiences - crafting a language that was intelligible, but did not sacrifice its theoretical rigor - while insisting on the value of providing readers with the opportunities to struggle with matters of language and meaning rather than imposing a slick authoritarian style in the name of "unadorned truth." As we move into the 21st century, Twitter-like clarity has replaced accessibility and has grown more pernicious as it aligns itself with an array of new corporate and military institutions, a dumbed-down cultural apparatus, school systems that miseducate and a growing network of films, talk radio and television shows in which language is emptied of content and thought only creates obstacles to the desire for thrill-seeking entertainment. In an age in which the acceleration of time is perfectly suited to the eradication of thoughtfulness, pop clarity and its notion of frictionless, spontaneous truth now governs the conditions for all modes of intelligibility.

The lack of critical literacy fed by populist appeals to common sense and the high pleasure of mass mediated reality, increasingly secured by the speed and endless spectacle of video game culture, induces a moral and political indifference that cannot even be bothered to engage intellectually on a public level at all. But more fundamentally, the appeal to common sense and plain language has become a rhetorical maneuver that masks a grab for power (especially by conservatives and corporate media) based on an illusion of legitimate authority and truth that denies the very existence of power embedded in linguistic constructs. Language in this dubious scenario is neither shaped by nor deploys power, nor is it worth struggling over.

Public discourse has taken a bad hit with the rise of the new media, with its economy of overabundance and its dizzying array of platforms. But there is more at stake here than an overabundant economy of information; there is a new kind of society of the spectacle producing a new kind of thoughtlessness. Print culture, which slows time down because it demands a more sustained focus, is no longer the primary source of information and entertainment for a generation of young people hooked on the immediacy and high interactivity of an audio and visual culture and the various media outlets that supply it. Or as the French theorist Stéphane Baillargeon put it, "I would dare to say that audiovisual media, radio and television, have imposed their cognitive model everywhere ... Now the model demands that reality be echoed, that the movement be followed by the minute, without seeking perspective and comprehension."[12] The corporate domination of the new media is producing a dangerous form of depoliticization and moral indifference - a kind of collective descent into an obsessive compulsive disorder existence - not allowing people to focus, take their time, develop a sense of compassion and social responsibility, or create the conditions for thoughtful reading and writing. This is not to deny that the new media also produces new and useful modes of interaction and exchange, but that is only part of the story and one under the threat of erasure. The underside of this narrative is a social order mobilized and shaped by new technologies and forms of audio and screen culture that blend all too seamlessly with the anti-intellectual tendencies of the dominant society which is wedded to the spectacle of celebrity culture and mass advertising and resistant to almost any notion of critique and rhetorical complexity. What has come out of this unprecedented historical emergence of technological spectacles is more than a culture of distraction; we are witnessing a withdrawal from complexity - even social reality - and a devaluation of the cultural apparatuses now overwhelmed by an infusion of endless soundbites, celebrity babbling, hate talk, consumer mania and endless pornographic representations of violence. All too often justified with the appeal to clarity, entertainment and record-breaking profits.

Although there are still a number of academics such as Noam Chomsky, Angela Davis, Stanley Aronowitz, Slavoj Zisek, Russell Jacoby and Lewis Gordon, who function as public intellectuals, they are often shut out of the mainstream media or characterized as marginal, even subversive, figures. At the same time, many academics find themselves laboring under horrendous working conditions that either don't allow for them to write in an accessible manner for the public because they do not have time - given the often almost slave-like labor demanded of part-time academics and increasingly of full-time academics as well - or they retreat into a highly specialized, professional language that few people can understand in order to meet the institutional standards of academic excellence. In this instance, potentially significant theoretical rigor detaches itself both from any viable notion of accessibility and from the possibility of reaching a larger audience outside of their academic disciplines. Consequently, such intellectuals now exist in hermetic academic bubbles cut off from both the larger public and the important issues that impact society. To no small degree, they have been complicit in the transformation of the university into an adjunct of corporate and military power. Such academics have become incapable of defending higher education as a vital public sphere and unwilling to challenge those spheres of induced mass cultural illiteracy that doom critically engaged thought, complex ideas and serious writing for the public to extinction. Without their intervention as public intellectuals, the reign of clarity gains new force and cancels out any attempt to give the political necessity of experimental language accessibility and rigorous writing a public hearing.

Before his untimely death, Edward Said, himself an exemplary public intellectual, urged his colleagues in the academy to develop a sense of intellectual rather than professional vocation. He insisted that the central issue for intellectuals is to directly confront, in efforts to alleviate, those forms of social suffering that disfigure contemporary society and pose a serious threat to the promise of democracy. He believed that such a task could be addressed by creating the pedagogical conditions and formative cultures that promote critical awareness, thought and dialogue - the primary ingredients of a literate culture necessary for any aspiring democracy. According to Said:

"One of the things that I therefore see as an extraordinarily useful job is to make people sensitive to the uses of language, not as a kind of arcane classification of languages in let's say the jargon of mechanical engineering versus the jargon of political science, but rather the way in which language carries forward values, does work. It does actually work, it performs services of one sort or another and above all, how language can change perceptions and indeed in the end change the world in which we live. And unless we have a sense of the way in which language can in fact change reality, instead of the other way around, which we always assume, then I think we're committed to a use of language that is dead and passive. And one of the things I feel as a student and as a teacher and as an intellectual, which I'm trying to teach my own students, is a sense of the creative powers of language, no matter in which field it's used. And the best use of language for me is the use of language that is committed to the self-reflectiveness, the self-consciousness, of a student, of a user of language, rather than the student or the person who uses language simply as a passive receptacle. Therefore, for me, my antagonist is the person who passively watches CNN all day long and says that's the world. My ideal is the person who looks at CNN and says, no, that's not the world, that's a version of the world and my duty as a mind in society is to understand what alternative versions there are in order for me to make my choice and to go out and to change the world.[13]

For public intellectuals such as Said, Chomsky, Pierre Bourdieu, Angela Davis, and others, intellectuals have a responsibility to unsettle power, trouble consensus and challenge common sense. The very notion of being an engaged public intellectual is neither foreign to nor a violation of what it means to be an academic scholar, but central to its very definition. According to Said, academics have a responsibility to enter into the public sphere unafraid to take positions and generate controversy, functioning as moral witnesses, raising political awareness, making connections to those elements of power and politics often hidden from public view and reminding "the audience of the moral questions that may be hidden in the clamor and din of the public debate."[14] At the same time, Said criticized those academics who retreated into a new dogmatism of the disinterested specialist that separates them "not only from the public sphere but from other professionals who don't use the same jargon."[15] This was especially unsettling to him at a time when complex language and critical thought remain under assault in the larger society by all manner of anti-democratic forces.

Whether in the dominant media or in other institutions shaped by militarism or market-driven or other reactionary values, society is incessantly offered up prepackaged dribble for faux analysis, fast food discourse as a substitute for sustained thought, instant commentaries instead of substantive critique and a range of spectacles that continually work to awe and infantilize the larger public. Under such circumstances, Said insisted that the academy with its commitment, however idealized, to critical thought, self-reflection, engaged research and reason is one of the few spheres left where engaged and critical agents could be educated. And while he railed against the cult of professionalism and expertise in the university with its world of "hermetic, jargon-ridden, unthreatening combativeness,"[16] he rightly argued that the university is still a viable site of struggle, and urged academics to connect their intellectual work with interventions into public life. He also argued that, even as the university became more hostile to engaged criticism, mimicking the values of the larger corporate-controlled media, academics have a responsibility to take advantage of the widening circles of educational exchanges. As he put it, "Think of the impressive range of opportunities offered by the lecture platform, the pamphlet, radio, alternative journals, occasional papers, the interview, the rally, the church pulpit and the Internet, to name only a few," as places where academics could assert their role as public intellectuals.[17] Rather than endorsing a notion of clarity as simplicity (or too often infantilism) that eschews any vestige of critical thought, theory, or willingness to struggle with language, Said argued for a notion of accessibility in which complexity and rigor were translated for a general public. In his analysis, the distinction between complexity and clarity is viewed as a disabling binarism and is rejected in favor of an approach to writing that addresses what it means to make language accessible without emptying its content of any viable meaning or insulting the public by not challenging it to assume some responsibility for its engagement with the text.

Tragically, intellectuals who write for a broader audience have not disappeared either from the academy or from other institutions such as corporate-sponsored foundations; they have simply changed sides, no longer writing for the public as much as they write against it, and always in the language of clarity. These individuals are what George Scialabba calls the anti-public intellectuals. As he put it, the function of the anti-public intellectual "is not criticism, not defense of the public against private or state power, but the opposite."[18] These are intellectuals who offer their talents and skills to the goals of the state and corporate elite. They attack the semi-welfare state and any viable notion of social protection. In doing so, they actively work to pathologize all things public such as schools, health care, public transportation and other important social services. They rail against big government playing an important role in providing social protections and improving citizens' lives, but have no trouble supporting an expansion of government power in regulating morality, investing in a permanent war economy, supporting the coercive powers of the state, expanding the surveillance state and advocating government power to free corporations of any form of regulation. Examples abound and are evident in the misguided, often racist rumblings of Dinesh D'Souza, the anti-public school rhetoric of privatization advocated by Chester Finn and the anti-social state discourse of Charles Murray, among others. The basic ideological elements that shape the discourse of the anti-public intellectuals is also hard wired into consolidating the far right wing of the Republican Party. Their cruder counterparts can be found in the anti-public intellectuals, who dominate the radio and television talk-show circuits, including Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and that ilk. These are what the late French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu called "'fast thinkers,' specialists in throw-away thinking."[19] These are the recycled anti-public, public relations intellectuals who do nothing more than offer "cultural fast food - predigested and prethought culture,"[20] who trade in soundbites and write with a clarity that debases complex issues, insults its readers and simplifies important subjects to the point of draining them of any real critical complexity and substance.

As the late Pierre Bourdieu put it, such intellectuals justify "a policy of demagogic simplification (which is absolutely and utterly contrary to the democratic goal of informing or educating people by interesting them)."[21] Instead of uncovering the unseen workings of power, they cast a linguistic fog around it, banishing wherever possible public capacity for thoughtfulness and engaged debate, always pitting their discourse - wrapped up in the right-wing populist appeal to common sense and deeply at odds with any notion of social and economic justice - against the vocabularies of the media elites, academics and other members of the "liberal establishment," who don't subscribe to their uniform and anti-intellectual notion of clarity. The reactionary politics conveniently hidden beneath the appeal to plain speech and common sense becomes startlingly clear, for instance, when conservative broadcaster Glenn Beck on his March 2, 2010, radio show stated, "I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words."[22] And as The New York Times pointed out, Beck "was saying they were code words for Communism and Nazism."[23]

The anti-democratic tendencies of fast food thought and discourse are also readily available in the "fast thinkers," who usually ramp up their embrace of banal and commonsense language with a dash of the sensational and the spectacular. This type of spectacle is on full display in the McCarthy-like ramblings of Dick Cheney's daughter Liz Cheney and the inevitable Bill Kristol, the neoconservative editor of the Weekly Standard, both of whom have recently inundated the media with the accusation that government lawyers who provide pro bono defense for Guantanamo Bay detainees are un-American, if not traitorous. Not only did they produce a shameful video branding "these government lawyers as 'the Al Qaeda Seven,'" they also "juxtaposed their supposed un-American activities with a photo of Osama bin Laden."[24] At its most elemental, such demagoguery draped in the language of clear speech and sensationalism, while eliminating any pretense to thoughtful argumentation, undercuts the ability of the American public to function as critically informed citizens.

With the rise of the disengaged academic and the anti-public intellectual, public commitment is sacrificed to professionally sanctioned discourse on the one hand, and the authoritarian appeal to clarity and common sense on the other. Both positions pose a serious problem for civic engagement and democratic practices, each contributing in their own way to undoing the possibility for critical agency and informed modes of communication. But these forces do not exist on an equal footing or inspire equal effect. As Richard Hofstadter wrote in his monumental "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life" and Susan Jacoby updated in her book, "The Age of American Unreason," anti-intellectualism has a long history in the United States and at the present moment it appears to have reached unprecedented heights "thanks to the converging influences of junk science, fundamentalism, celebrity-obsessed media ... declining academic standards ... political pandering and the weakening of investigative journalism, among other factors."[25] How else can one explain the lack of outrage over the Texas Board of Education producing a social studies curriculum for thousands of school children that rewrites history so as to consolidate the values of religious fundamentalists, celebrate right-wing social movements such as the National Rifle Association, justify McCarthyism and eliminate Thomas Jefferson "from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th and 19th centuries" because he endorsed the term "separation between church and state."[26] Clearly, what all of these examples suggest is that critical literacy, or reading the world and the word critically, cannot be separated from the ability to deal with difficult language and complex argumentation to piece the lies, misrepresentations and omissions that comfortably wrap themselves in Sarah Palin folksiness and belligerent common sense a la Glenn Beck.

And while I have focus on the role of academics and intellectuals in this debate over language, I think it is fair to say that the need to write in a discourse that has vigor and passion and can be read by the general public is both essential and problematic. It is essential in that language has to be accessible to reach broad and diverse audiences - even as what constitutes "accessibility" is inevitably a matter of trial and error. The shift toward greater accessibility should not be compromised by a populist commonsense appeal to clarity that cancels out any necessity to struggle with language and meaning, tragically undermining what might be the critical public function of accessible prose. Against accessibility, clarity condemns any notion of difficult reading, complex language and sustained focus and thoughtfulness. Its advocates often ignore entire arguments, even intellectual traditions, by dismissing them as unclear, just as they reduce the importance of all meaning to the yardstick of clarity, by which they really mean simple, transparent, entertaining and in keeping with a pet ideological agenda. The invoking of clarity as a tool to promote anti-intellectualism is not so far removed from a species of dogmatism that refuses to give opposing points of view a fair hearing. It is also close minded to any language that is unfamiliar and often substitutes emotion and opinion for sustained argument and careful analysis.

The fashionable use of clarity to delegitimize any struggle over meaning and language distinguishes among forms of writing based on a facile opposition between what is deemed complex and what is deemed clear - denying altogether the political motivation that drives it. This binarism presupposes that the simple invocation to clear language can by itself confer sense, if not a certain type of spontaneous and immediately recognized truth and legitimacy. This position also suggests that readers should be able to engage ideas effortlessly, thereby placing no burden of responsibility on the reader for critical analysis and reflective thought. The imperative to write in clear language redefines the relationship between language and power in largely strategic terms. That is, when structured around the binary opposition of clarity versus complexity, this particular focus on language not only ignores how multiple audiences read differently, but also subverts the very problem it claims to be addressing. It restricts the possibility for expanding a culture of questioning and dialogue by refusing to address the importance of developing multiple literacies that allow people to speak across and within different maps of meaning. Clarity in this case seems to me to do more to fuel intolerance than advance receptivity to different discourses, meanings, values and modes of translation and exchange.

Moreover, the claim that some writers, academics and journalists write in a language that is arcane and inaccessible runs the risk of reifying the issue of clarity by presupposing rather than demonstrating a universal standard for measuring it. For example, do critics who invoke the litmus test of clarity have a specific standard in mind when they pass judgment on the literacy levels of the various audiences that read sources as diverse as Truthout and Dissent? Is it the equivalent of a reading level embodied in Reader's Digest? What is definitive about their assessment that grants them the authority to judge for all readers what is accessible and what is not? Unfortunately, the discourse of clarity appears to rest on a universal standard of literacy that presumably need not be questioned as well as a self-righteous and deeply anti-democratic suggestion that most people are just too dumb or indifferent to struggle with language and meaning. This approach to language suppresses questions of context - who reads what under what conditions? More importantly, it presumes that language is a transparent medium for the seamless transmission of existing facts that need only be laid out in an agreed-upon fashion. Such a position runs the risk of fleeing the politics of culture by situating language outside of history, power and struggle. While such an anti-theoretical stance may be comforting to some, it provides no help in understanding the complex relationship among power, critical thought and the inevitable struggle over language. Moreover, the appeal to clarity often ignores the challenges of language use incurred by writers whose aim is make the familiar strange - retooling certain commonsense assumptions by putting them in different contexts, revealing their hidden order of politics or placing them in new modes of language.

To be sure, this is not an elaborate excuse for unintelligible language or "bad writing" - were such a category ever agreed upon - as much as it is an attempt to discern between a notion of clarity that shuts down thought and a notion of accessibility that enables public intellectuals to get "their ideas across to more than one type of audience [while also being] able to comment broadly on society, culture and politics."[27] If the greatest obstacle to critical thinking and social agency is the enforced insistence on a kind of general ignorance in the name of clarity, it is time for both academics and the general public to think more carefully about what it means to be not only responsible writers, but also responsible readers.

At the very least, one must question what makes these warriors for clarity capable of reading certain texts critically while simultaneously suggesting that the general public is not intelligent enough to understand them. There is more at work here than an elitism of the grassroots; there is also the ungenerous presupposition that most people are too "dumb" to read a text or engage a language that is critical, theoretical and oppositional. Accordingly, this position suggests that activism and intellectual labor are mutually antithetical - and, more revealing, best left to a coterie of visionary leaders. In addition, it suggests that there is no room for academics to translate theory or specialized work so as to make that "knowledge available to wider social forces," to connect such work to readers and public spheres outside of the boundaries of the university.[28] Stripped-down notions of clarity build a wall between academia and the larger public and in doing so reinforce the worst intellectual tendencies in both. On the one hand, the notion allows academics to retreat into their disciplinary specialisms and arcane jargon, often allowing them to become complicit with dominant modes of power and authority. On the other hand, the celebration of stripped-down clarity invites members of the broader public to deskill and depoliticize themselves by diminishing their capacity for reading the word and world critically, simultaneously placing themselves in positions of subordination by undercutting their own sense of agency.

In an age in which a ruthless market-driven culture reduces literacy to being a savvy consumer of commodities and an ongoing participant in brainless celebrity culture, language, literacy and meaning must become crucial terrains of contestation and struggle. Making the appeal to clarity problematic should not be mistaken for a clever exercise intent in merely reversing the relevance of the categories so that abstract language is prioritized over the language of common sense and folksiness - or that the appeal to clarity is always on the side of a willful mystification. At issue here is the need to both question and reject the reductionism and exclusions that characterize the binary oppositions between clarity and complexity, intellectual labor and simplified prose. The problem is not "bad" writing, as if writing that is difficult to grapple with has nothing important to say. Rather, the most important issue to be addressed by readers is not clarity, but whether such writing offers a vision and practice for deepening the possible relations between cultural discourses (including academic discourses) and the imperatives of a substantive, pluralized democracy. Hence, the defining principle for theoretical practice belongs to a "renewed interest in democracy and ... how a democratic culture might be fashioned."[29] It has become too easy to miss the role that the language of clarity plays in a dominant culture that cleverly and powerfully uses clear and simplistic language to systematically undermine and prevent those conditions necessary for a general public to engage in at least rudimentary forms of critical thinking. In effect, what is missed in this analysis is that the dreadful homogenization and standardization of language in the mass media, schools, and other cultural sites point to how language and power often combine to offer the general public and others knowledge and ideologies cleansed of complex thought or oppositional insight.

What many academics, intellectuals and other individuals too often forget is that the importance of language and communication as theoretical practice is derived, in large part, from their critical and subversive possibilities. Hence, judging an article or text by the simple yardstick of clarity and plain speak does not offer a serious enough challenge to modes of writing and speaking that become complicit with either anti-intellectualism or elitism, both of which undermine the ability of a general public to think in critical and oppositional terms. The question of "what is language good for?" becomes relevant when it situates the issue of clarity and accessibility within a larger discourse about the role of public intellectuals, the dynamics of power and agency and the formative educational culture necessary for democracy to function.

Special Offer: During Truthout's fundraising drive this week, we have a special offer for the first 10 people who sign up for a recurring monthly donation of $20 or more. We will send you a signed copy of one of Truthout board member Henry Giroux's groundbreaking books. You can choose from "Beyond the Spectacle of Terrorism: Global Uncertainty and the Challenge of the New Media," "Against the Terror of Neoliberalism: Politics Beyond the Age of Greed," "The University in Chains: Confronting the Military-Industrial-Academic Complex" and "Youth in Suspect Society: Democracy or Disposability?" (while supplies last). In the comments section of the donation page, please indicate which book you would like.

Click here to visit the Truthout Donation Page.

Endnotes

[1]. Richard Hofstadter, "Anti-intellectualism in American Life" (New York: Vantage Books, 1963).

[2]. Noam Chomsky, "The Culture of Terrorism" (Boston: South End Press, 1988), p. 21.

[3]. Ibid.

[4]. Russell Jacoby, "The Last Intellectuals: American Culture in the Age of Academe" (New York: Basic Books, 1987), p. 236.

[5]. Ben Agger, "The Decline of Discourse" (New York: Palmer Press, 1990), pp. 35, 37.

[6]. Denita Smith, "When Ideas Get Lost in Bad Writing," New York Times (February 7, 1999). Online: http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/badwriting.htm.

[7]. Martha Nussbaum, "The Professor of Parody," The New Republic (November 2, 2000). Online: http://www.arlindo-correia.com/100702.

[8]. Nussbaum, "The Professor of Parody."

[9]. Judith Butler, cited in Gary A. Olson and Lynn Worsham, "Changing the Subject: Judith Butler's Politics of Radical Resignification," JAC 20:4 (2000), p. 727.

[10]. Olson and Worsham, "Changing the Subject," p. 738.

[11]. One can see examples of both of these discourses in her recent books. See Judith Butler, "Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence" (London: Verso Press, 2004) and Judith Butler, "Frames of War: When Is Life Grievable?" (Brooklyn, New York.: Verso, 2009).

[12]. Stéphane Baillargeon, "Emerging from the Media Fog," TruthOut.org (January 11, 2010). Online at: http://www.truthout.org/emerging-media-fog56702.

[13]. Edward Said, "What Is the Role of the Intellectual in Public and Political Life Today?" Interview by Michael Phillips on Social Thought, February 1991. Online: http://www.well.com/user/mp/t20.html.

[14]. Edward Said, "On Defiance and Taking Positions, Reflections on Exile and Other Essays" (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001), p. 504.

[15]. Edward Said, "Humanism and Democratic Criticism" (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004), p. 70.

[16]. Edward Said, "Humanism and Democratic Criticism," p. 126.

[17]. Edward Said, "Humanism and Democratic Criticism," p. 132.

[18]. George Scialabba, "What Are Intellectuals Good For?" (Boston: Pressed Wafer, 2009), p. 7.

[19]. Pierre Bourdieu, "On Television" (New York: The New Press, 1996), p. 35.

[20]. Pierre Bourdieu, "On Television," p. 29.

[21]. Pierre Bourdieu, "On Television," p. 3.

[22]. Laurie Goodstein, "Outraged by Glenn Beck's Salvo, Christians Fire Back," New York Times (March 11, 2010), p. A14.

[23]. Laurie Goodstein, "Outraged by Glenn Beck's Salvo, Christians Fire Back."

[24]. Frank Rich, "The New Rove-Cheney Assault on Reality," New York Times (March 14, 2010), p. WK8.

[25]. Thomas Benton, "On Stupidity," Chronicle of Higher Education (August 2008). Online: http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2008/08/2008080101c.htm.

[26]. James C. McKinley Jr., "Texas Conservatives Win Curriculum Change," New York Times (March 12, 2010), p. A10.

[27]. Ellen Willis, "Who Will Support the Intellectual's Work," The Minnesota Review 50 - 51 (October 1999), p. 189.

[28]. Stuart Hall, cited in Greig de Peuter, "Universities, Intellectuals and Multitudes: An Interview with Stuart Hall," ed. Mark Cote, Richard J. F. Day and Greig de Peuter, "Utopian Pedagogy: Radical Experiments against Neoliberal Globalization" (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007), p. 115.

[29]. Gregory Jay, "The End of 'American' Literature: Toward a Multicultural Practice," College English 53 (1991), p. 266.