This may be old news to many, but recently I
learned that Bruno Bettelheim, the famous Freudian child psychology expert,
whose work was used to help put forward the racist "culture of poverty" theory
as to why black Americans were more likely to be in poverty -- that Dr.
Bettelheim actually had his Ph.D. in ART HISTORY. One year his college was
short-staffed to teach a psychology course, so Bruno volunteered. With those
credentials now in hand, he then became this renowned bourgeois "expert", so
often quoted.
It is a tricky question, this question of
credentials. Marx had his degree in Philosophy and dared to write about
economics. But good old Karl DID THE DAMN BASIC ECONOMIC RESEARCH. Agree or
disagree, the guy did some serious, deep analysis. Similarly, Lenin did not have
a degree in economics. But agree or disagree with his conclusions, at
least he did some serious empirical research and offered up some
evidence.
When I came into "academia" it was from
having been an anti-imperialist activist for a number of years. I mainly saw it
as a way to teach at the college level, and I was full of the idea that the
university intellectuals were primarily a bunch of advertising/propaganda
mouthpieces for bourgeois class domination. I wanted to go into the worst
field that was FILLED with nonsense and bullshit, in order to be a critic. So I
went looking for the field to choose. But, alas, economics was too boring.
And psychology was too narrow. So I chose sociology, which is a little more
flexible.
Every so often, I have had a little twinge
of self-doubt--you know, maybe I'm just acting like a "sour grapes" little kid
who can't make the team and stands on the outside throwing stones and making
snide anti-intellectual comments in order to hide my own feelings of
inadequacy. Then I pick up a major sociology journal or attend the ASA, and I
realize, again, that I was correct the first time. A great deal of what they do
isn't just "bad" because it is pro-capitalist; it is really pretty crappy in
terms of methodology, sampling, etc. etc. I don't mean to sound too arrogant
here, there are many serious people doing research, but the best stuff tends to
be more focused studies, for example of racist profiling, or deteriorating
health care, or housing, or sweatshops, etc. For the most part, the attempts to
construct "grand theory" by social scientists (or humanities folks) who cannot
see the pro-capitalist biases of their own Weberian psychological reductionism
often are just plain silly.
Many who admire "postmodernism" because it
is supposedly "the most radical view of all!" do not see the conservative side
of it. Sure, one can get some insights from ANALYZING (a much better term than
"deconstructing") the contextual basis of institutions, processes, and ideas.
But Toffler (whose Megatrends predates Hardt's work and makes similar pop
culture pronouncements) was an admirer of that great social critic, Newt
Gingrich. This is all just warmed over
"ultra-skepticism/surrealism/relativism" which has been around for a
while, sometimes says a few useful things, but mainly flares up during
times of economic, political, social, and cultural decay. It becomes a way of
embracing the decay and saying, in a pseudo-democratic sort of way: "Who are you
to declare that "decay" is a bad thing???? Why give privilege (oh, excuse
me, we have to make "privilege" a verb now, okay here goes) why PRIVILEGE any
perspective over any others?" (with the unstated assumption that the writer of
course believes that his/her views should be "privileged" based on the idea that
there is no center of the universe, except the ego of the writer.) More
seriously, it can feed a certain embracing of the decay that allows for a
seemingly odd coalition of traditional conservatives who claim to decry the
decadence and trendy post-modernists who want to embrace the decadence. What do
they have in common? They both hate or at least fear the working
class.
As a side point, all this feeds the
Reaganite right wingers, the George Wills-Bill Bennetts who delight in attacking
all social critics as being like the pampered, self-absorbed poets posing as
scientists. Yet, when it is time to attack the Marxists, the cultural
conservatives will applaud, or at least quietly assent, as the po-mos and
other liberals attack Marxists for planning to "take away everyone's fun", and
the po-mos and other liberals will applaud, or at least quietly assent, as the
cultural conservatives attack Marxists for having no morals or being atheists,
or denying "Spirituality." How can these two seeming opposites rationalize
their alliance? Well, the cultural conservatives can say that "It isn't what a
person says or does, but rather the role that they play in God's great plan--the
way they rationalize promiscuity among Republicans by saying that those
politicians may be sinners, but at least they are voting the right way, and
also, that individualism as proposed by the po-mos goes along with God's plan.
And the po-mos can even more easily rationalize their alliance with the cultural
conservatives because, hey, if everything is equal, then who are we to say that
Hitler is any worse than John Brown or William Z. Foster or the nurse that
saves your child's life. (Of course the guys behind the scenes don't
believe any of this, but their "public intellectuals", the Etzioni's,
Herrnsteins, Samuel P. Huntington's and especially the pop culture intellectuals
like Toffler, Fukayama (spelling?), Pat Robertson, Moynihan, Cornel West and
Stephen Spielberg can work at creating the glue of illlusion that can hold this
pragmatic consensus together. ) Similar coalitions were developed in Germany
during the 1920's and 1930's -- how else do you think that Hitler could ban
abortions and gas pregnant women to death and nobody spoke up about the
contradiction?
I wrote too much. I guess all I really
wanted to say was: "How can someone write a book about "Empire" and not deal
with the IMF?" Or more importantly, why would anyone pay attention to
someone who wrote such a book.....and what does that say, not about the
capitalists, who are just fufilling their "job description" but rather for the
rest of academia, which lends credibility to this shallow
nonsense.
Alan Spector
(sigh) Professor of Sociology
Purdue University Calumet
Hammond, IN 46324
(tours of the Rust Belt and interviews with
its victims available by request for those who believe that the world is really
just like Hollywood)
====================================================
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 3:56 PM
Subject: Michael Hardt in the NY Times
> NY Times, Saturday July 7,
2001
>
> What Is The Next Big Idea? Buzz Is Growing for
'Empire'
>
> By EMILY EAKIN
>
> DURHAM, N.C. - It
comes along only once every decade or so, typically
> arriving without
much fanfare. But soon it is everywhere: dominating
> conferences, echoing
in lecture halls, flooding scholarly journals. Every
> graduate student
dreams of being the one to think it up: the Next Big Idea.
>
>
RESPONSE: Is this the way that Karl Marx got started?
>
>
----
>
> In the 1960's it was Claude Lévi-Strauss and
structuralism. In the 1970's
> and 1980's it was Jacques Derrida and
deconstruction, Michel Foucault and
> poststructuralism and Jacques Lacan
and psychoanalysis, followed by various
> theorists of postcolonialism and
New Historicism.
>
> RESPONSE: How can the NY Times neglect
mentioning Hukalakka Meshabob, the
> founder of neo-Frebishoffism?
Frebishoff was the Soviet linguist who wrote
> seven meaty volumes
attacking Bakhtin. Frebishoff met an untimely death in
> the Spanish Civil
War when a mule kicked him to death prior to the battle
> for
Barcelona.
>
> ----
>
> And now scholars are wondering
if the latest contender for academia's next
> master theorist is Michael
Hardt, a self-effacing, 41-year-old associate
> professor of literature at
Duke University and the co-author of "Empire," a
> heady treatise on
globalization that is sending frissons of excitement
> through campuses
from São Paulo to Tokyo.
>
> RESPONSE: "Frisson" is the approved
postmodernist term for shiver. When one
> is shoveling snow in January,
one shivers. When one watches a movie by Jim
> Jarmusch, one gets the
frissons.
>
> ----
>
> Since Harvard University Press
published the book in March last year,
> translation rights have been sold
in 10 countries, including Japan and
> Croatia; the leading Brazilian
newspaper has put it on the cover of its
> Sunday magazine; and Dutch
television has broadcast a documentary about it.
> Fredric Jameson,
America's leading Marxist literary critic, has called it
> "the first
great new theoretical synthesis of the new millennium," while
> the
equally eminent Slovenian political philosopher Slavoj Zizek has
>
declared it "nothing less than a rewriting of the `The Communist
Manifesto'
> for our time."
>
> RESPONSE: My understanding is
that the FARC in Colombia has organized study
> groups on "Empire" in
Putumayo. Any shirkers face the firing squad.
>
> ----
>
> During the same period, Mr. Hardt has given 21 academic talks and
received
> tenure from Duke (a year early). And the compliments keep
coming.
>
> RESPONSE: Well, I do declare. It is high time that the
workers find out
> more about comrade Hardt. I plan to contact my friends
in the NYC Transit
> Union and set up a meeting for Hardt. The ties
between a correct reading of
> Polybius and upcoming contract negotiations
are crystal clear.
>
> ----
>
> "He's definitely hot,"
said Xudong Zhang, a professor of comparative
> literature and East Asian
Studies at New York University, who taught a
> graduate seminar on
"Empire" for the second time this spring. Masao
> Miyoshi, a professor of
literature at the University of California at San
> Diego, said, "He's one
of the very few younger people who will have an
> impact."
>
> RESPONSE: Somebody contact Spike Jonze. After doing "Being John
Malkovich",
> why not "Being Michael Hardt". You can travel around the
Duke campus with
> him, seeing things through his eyes. Football games,
faculty meetings,
> cocktail parties, the whole nine yards.
>
> ----
>
> There is no question that Mr. Hardt is unusually
talented. But talent alone
> does not provoke scholarly commotion. Other
factors must also be at work.
> For one thing, the topic must be in vogue;
and globalization happens to be
> the trendy subject right now.
>
> Then there is the allure of Mr. Hardt's flamboyant co-author,
Antonio
> Negri, a 68- year-old Italian philosopher and suspected
terrorist
> mastermind who is serving a 13- year prison sentence in Rome
for inciting
> violence during the turbulent 1970's.
>
>
RESPONSE: Actually the goal is to stay out of prison. But flamboyant
Negri
> certainly is. The Radical Party of Italy tends to attract such
figures.
>
> ----
>
> In large part, however, the fuss
over Mr. Hardt and "Empire" is about
> something else: the need in fields
like English, history and philosophy for
> a major new theory. "Literary
theory has been dead for 10 years," said
> Stanley Aronowitz, a
sociologist at the Graduate Center of the City
> University of New York.
"The most important point about `Empire' is that
> Michael is addressing
the crisis in the humanities, which has reached the
> point where banality
seems to pervade the sphere."
>
> RESPONSE: Stanley Aronowitz is
the world's leading expert on banality. The
> Times quoted exactly the
right person.
>
> ----
>
> Indeed, by the end of the
1990's, the sweeping approaches of the previous
> decades had been
exhausted. Yet no powerful new idea emerged to take their
> place. A deep
pessimism crept over the humanities. Today, scholars
> complain, their
fields are fragmented and rudderless.
>
> RESPONSE: Rudderless?
Exactly.
>
> ----
>
> So just what does a disquisition
on globalization have to offer scholars in
> crisis?
>
>
First, there is the book's broad sweep and range of learning. Spanning
>
nearly 500 pages of densely argued history, philosophy and political
>
theory, it features sections on imperial Rome, Haitian slave revolts,
the
> American Constitution and the Persian Gulf war, and references to
dozens of
> thinkers like Machiavelli, Spinoza, Hegel, Hobbes, Kant, Marx
and Foucault.
> In short, the book has the formal trappings of a master
theory in the old
> European tradition.
>
> RESPONSE: Yes,
this tradition includes Oswald Spengler, Nietzsche and
> Wyndham Lewis.
The ties to Karl Marx are tenuous at best.
>
> ----
>
> Then there is the theory itself. Globalization isn't simply the
latest
> phase in the history of imperialism and nation-states, the
authors declare.
> It's something radically new. Where other scholars and
the media depict
> countries vying for control of world markets, Mr. Hardt
and Mr. Negri
> instead discern a new political system and a new form of
power taking root.
> They call it Empire.
>
> RESPONSE: My
friend Patrick Bond, a professor and activist in South Africa,
> said that
the book was calculated to attract notice on the basis of coining
> a new
term: "Empire". Academics turn to new coinages (postmodernism,
>
structuralism, etc.) like a moth is drawn to a flame.
>
>
----
>
> Unlike historical empires, however, this one has no
emperor, no geographic
> capital and no single seat of power. In fact,
given the authors' abstruse
> formulation, it's almost easier to say what
Empire isn't than what it is: a
> fluid, infinitely expanding and highly
organized system that encompasses
> the world's entire population. It's a
system that no one person,
> corporation or country can control. (It's
also apparently still under
> construction. One hallmark of Empire is
"supranational organisms," few of
> which seem to exist yet. The authors
regard the United Nations, for
> example, as a precursor of a "real
supranational center.")
>
> RESPONSE: What crowning foolishness.
Imperialism does have a center. It is
> called New York City/Washington,
the modern day equivalent of London or
> Rome. The United Nations is as
much as a precursor to a "supernational"
> center as the IMF is to a
socialist funding agency. Of course, there is no
> reference to the IMF in
"Empire" since the authors could care less about
> the real world of class
relations.
>
> ----
>
> More surprising still, Empire
is good news: it's potentially the most
> democratic political system to
hit the face of the earth. As Mr. Hardt puts
> it, "The thing we call
Empire is actually an enormous historical
> improvement over the
international system and imperialism." The reason?
> Because power under
Empire is widely dispersed, so presumably just about
> anyone could affect
its course.
>
> RESPONSE: True, true. Just yesterday NBC news
reported that the Hague is
> about to arrest Bob Kerry and Henry Kissinger
who will be tried for war
> crimes alongside Milosevic.
>
>
----
>
> "Empire creates a greater potential for revolution than
did the modern
> regimes of power," the authors write, "because it
presents us, alongside
> the machine of command, with an alternative: the
set of all the exploited
> and the subjugated, a multitude that is
directly opposed to Empire, with no
> mediation between them."
>
> RESPONSE: My only question is what Hardt will do when the
revolution
> starts. He spends much of his time playing chamber music and
that would
> interfere with throwing molotov cocktails.
>
>
----
>
> The book is full of such bravura passages. Whether
presenting new concepts
> - like Empire and the multitude - or urging
revolution, it brims with
> confidence in its ideas. Does it have the
staying power and broad appeal
> necessary to become the next master
theory? It is too soon to say. But for
> the moment, "Empire" is filling a
void in the humanities.
>
> RESPONSE: It brims with confidence
because the authors have only known the
> adulation of graduate students
and editors at high-toned academic
> publishing houses. If they had normal
jobs, nobody would pay them the least
> attention.
>
>
----
>
> For literary scholars it is evidence that the work they do
is politically
> important. They are not simply analyzing Milton's
religious convictions or
> parsing "Finnegans Wake," they argue, but
shedding light on the way the
> world really works. Consider
deconstruction; it revolutionized scholars'
> understanding of language.
Lacanian psychoanalysis did the same for the
> human psyche. In a similar
way, "Empire" lays out a new way of thinking
> about global politics. When
it comes to understanding current events, the
> book insists, even
literary scholars have something important to
> contribute. And at a
moment of disciplinary crisis, that's a message that's
> bound to
appeal.
>
> RESPONSE: Literary scholars of course consider their
work politically
> important.
>
> ----
>
>
Michèle Lamont, a sociologist at Princeton University, argued as much in
a
> famous article titled "How to Become a Dominant French Philosopher:
The
> Case of Jacques Derrida," which appeared in The American Journal
of
> Sociology in 1987. She concluded that Mr. Derrida's popularity had
less to
> do with the intrinsic value of his ideas than with his
"sophisticated
> writing style," "distinctive theoretical framework" and
lucky timing.
> Deconstruction, she wrote, "was an answer to a
disciplinary crisis." His
> famously stylish clothes and his thick French
accent didn't hurt either.
>
> Of course, Mr. Hardt can't trade on
credentials like those. Not that long
> ago he even had trouble finding a
job. With a Ph.D. in comparative
> literature from the University of
Washington at Seattle, he lacked both an
> Ivy League diploma and the kind
of narrow specialization that many academic
> departments look for these
days.
>
> "I applied to French, Italian, English, political science
and philosophy
> departments," he recalled recently over lunch at an
Italian restaurant near
> the Duke campus. "But the reality of it is that
almost no one would hire me."
>
> RESPONSE: I am really impressed
with Hardt's struggle to achieve success.
> It reminds me of Che Guevara's
heroic efforts to participate in the
> guerrilla movement to overthrow
Batista despite debilitating bouts of asthma.
>
> ----
>
> With his soft voice, denim jacket and unruly dark hair, Mr. Hardt looks
and
> sounds more like an idealistic graduate student than a rapidly
rising star
> scholar. When he did land a job in the Italian department at
the University
> of Southern California in 1993, he said, he found himself
at odds with
> colleagues in his field.
>
> "I went to a
conference on Marx and deconstruction," he recalled. "I
> listened to a
series of papers that were so convoluted and abstract. The
> speakers said
they were talking about politics, but I couldn't understand a
> thing
political about them. I was so frustrated after the weekend that on
> the
Monday after, I called the state prison commission and found out how I
>
could volunteer teaching at the local prison."
>
> RESPONSE: Did
the prisoners get to hear about Polybius?
>
> ----
>
>
By this time he was already collaborating with Mr. Negri. Inspired by
the
> Italian philosopher's writings and political activism, Mr. Hardt had
asked
> a friend to introduce them during a visit to Paris, where Mr.
Negri had
> fled to avoid serving his jail sentence. (In 1997, he returned
to Rome -
> and went directly to prison.) They began collaborating on
"Empire" in 1994.
>
> >From a professional standpoint, it was a
risky move. Though Mr. Hardt had
> published a book of his own (on the
French philosopher Gilles Deleuze), he
> had no obvious area of
specialization. Moreover, interest in contemporary
> Italian philosophy
was small in the United States.
>
> For Mr. Hardt, the risks
obviously paid off. Of course, his book has
> skeptics. Some say
nation-states are as strong as ever; that the book fails
> to back up its
theory with facts; that it's hobbled by Marxist ideology.
>
>
RESPONSE: This book is about as hobbled by Marxist ideology as "The
Wizard
> of Oz" is.
>
> ----
>
> "The argument
that the world exhibits a completely different power
> structure is at
least grossly hyperbolic and more probably merely false,"
> said John
Gray, a professor of European thought at the London School of
> Economics,
who has published his own critique of globalization, "False
> Dawn" (New
Press, 1999). " `Empire' theorizes the current state of the
> world in a
way which produces romantically alluring phrases that gloss over
> the
actual conflicts, discontinuities, uncertainties and sheer
> unknowability
of the world and its power relations today."
>
> RESPONSE: John
Gray is a disillusioned Tory. The Times quotes everybody
> except an
old-school Marxist. I will call them on Monday morning and give
> them a
piece of my mind.
>
> ----
>
> Such criticisms don't
seem to bother Mr. Hardt. He says he is pleased that
> the book has found
an audience outside what he calls "our small fanatical
> readership." He
has few illusions that he is the next Derrida.
>
> "I'm sure I'm
not," he said. "Toni and I don't think of this as a very
> original book.
We're putting together a variety of things that others have
> said. That's
why it's been so well received. It's what people have been
> thinking but
not really articulated."
>
> And he readily concedes that "Empire"
has flaws. Mr. Zizek complained that
> for a book that preaches
revolution, it had an unforgivable omission: no
> how-to manual. Mr. Hardt
agreed:
>
> "I wrote him an e-mail and said, `Yes, it's true we
don't know what the
> revolution should be.' And he wrote back saying,
`Yeah, well, I don't know
> either.' "
>
> RESPONSE: No
problem. The idea is not to make a revolution, but how to get
>
invitations to speak at the next 21 academic conferences.
>
> Louis
Proyect
> Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
>