http://www.alternet.org/books/widespread-failure-intellectuals-stand-authoritarian-power-america?paging=off
[This article is an excerpt from We Are All Apocalyptic Now: On the
Responsibilities of Teaching, Preaching, Reporting, Writing, and
Speaking Out,
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/148195847X/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER.]
Given the considerable resources in the United States spent to subsidize
intellectual work, why are so many intellectuals -- journalists,
academics, writers -- not critiquing the many hierarchical institutions
and not highlighting the disastrous consequences of these systems? Why
are so many intellectuals instead providing support for the institutions
and systems? Why is the majority of intellectual work in the United
States not challenging but instead helping to prop up the unjust
distribution of wealth and power, and the unsustainable
extractive/industrial system? Both intellectuals and the people who
provide the resources that allow intellectuals to work should ponder
this crucial question.
I am not suggesting that to be a responsible intellectual one must agree
with me on all these issues, that anyone who does not agree with my
approach to these issues is a soulless sell-out. My argument is that if
we take seriously the basic moral principles at the core of modern
philosophical and theological systems we claim to believe in, in light
of the data on social injustice and the serious threats to ecological
sustainability, these questions should be central in the work of
intellectuals. Based on my experience as a journalist, professor, and
political activist -- a life in which I have always worked in
intellectual professions and interacted with many other intellectuals in
various settings -- I have learned that the story is complicated but
that a sharp critique of intellectuals as a social formation is
warranted.
First, let’s recognize that intellectual work generally comes with
considerable privilege. That does not mean that intellectuals don’t work
hard, make sacrifices, or feel stress. But in general, intellectuals
are compensated well for work that is not physically hazardous and can
be rewarding on many levels. There are many intellectuals-in-training
(graduate students) and underemployed intellectuals (adjunct faculty)
who face overwhelming workloads and few perks, and so we should be
cautious about generalizing too much about the category of
“intellectual.” This analysis focuses on those doing intellectual work
with the most privilege and the most autonomy.
Ideally, we pay intellectuals to help us deepen our understanding of how
the world works, toward the goal of shaping a world more consistent
with our moral and political principles, and our collective
self-interest. What are the forces that keep people, especially
relatively privileged people, mute in the face of such a clear need for
critical intellectual work? The first, and easiest, answer is individual
self-interest -- the status and economic rewards that come to
intellectuals who serve power. Upton Sinclair put it most succinctly:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary
depends upon his not understanding it.”
No doubt some intellectuals make calculations about how to use their
abilities to enrich themselves, but in my experience such crass greed is
relatively rare. I suspect that a desire to be accepted by peers is at
least as powerful a motivation for intellectuals to accept the status
quo. Humans are social animals who generally seek a safe and secure
place in a social group, and there’s no reason intellectuals would be
different. Even when concentrated wealth and power do not threaten
people with serious punishments, the desire to be a well-regarded member
of an intellectual community is a powerful conformity-inducer. When
one’s professional cohort works within the worldview that the wealthy
and powerful construct, the boundaries of that world seem appropriate.
Curiosity about what lies beyond those boundaries tends to atrophy.
Those forces have been in play for a long time, but another potentially
crucial factor is the way in which confronting the reality of injustice
and unsustainability can be morally and psychologically overwhelming for
anyone. As the documentation of human suffering and the threats to
ecological sustainability accumulate, in an era when multiple
communication channels make it easy to be aware of more and more of this
information, that awareness can seem to be too much to face. The desire
to rationalize the suffering and imagine an easy escape is easy to
understand.
Rationalization #1: Justifying Hierarchy
When humans suffer in extreme situations, such as war or natural
disasters, most people in most situations find it easy to care and
respond. When the suffering is ongoing and apparently endemic to the
systems of the world, staying connected to that suffering is more
difficult. In such situations, it can be attractive to find ways to
justify hierarchy and the resulting suffering, rather than to challenge
power.
There is wide consensus on the values that are central to constructing a
decent human society: justice, equality, compassion, honesty,
opportunity, sharing. It is difficult to imagine such a society without
these basic elements: (1) the belief in the inherent dignity of all
human beings; (2) a sense of solidarity with at least those in one’s
community, if not beyond; and (3) a commitment to achieving a rough
equality so that everyone has access to the material requirements for a
decent life. That list does not assume that people are morally perfect
or perfectible, but instead articulates common aspirations for
ourselves, others, and society.
How do we explain the fact that most people’s stated philosophical and
theological systems are rooted in concepts of equality, solidarity, and
the inherent dignity of all people, yet we allow violence, exploitation,
and oppression to flourish? Only a small percentage of people in any
given society are truly sociopaths, those who engage in cruel and
oppressive behavior openly and without a capacity for empathy. In my
experience, the most common way in which people make their peace with
that contradiction is to accept the claim that hierarchy and injustice
are inevitable, and that the best we can do is try to smooth off the
rough edges of such systems. The process can be summed up like this:
--The systems and structures in which we live are hierarchical.
--Hierarchical systems and structures deliver to those in the dominant
class certain privileges, pleasures, and material benefits.
--People are typically hesitant to give up such privileges, pleasures, and benefits.
--But, those benefits clearly come at the expense of those in the subordinated class.
--Given the widespread acceptance of basic notions of dignity,
solidarity, and equality, the existence of hierarchy has to be justified
in some way other than crass self-interest.
--One of the most persuasive arguments for systems of domination and subordination is that they are “natural.”
So, oppressive systems work hard to make it appear that the hierarchy --
and the disparity in power and resources that flow from hierarchy -- is
natural and, therefore, beyond modification. If white people are
naturally smarter and more virtuous than people of color, then white
supremacy is inevitable and justifiable. If men are naturally stronger
and more capable of leadership than women, then patriarchy is inevitable
and justifiable. If rich people are naturally clearer-thinking and
harder-working than poor people, then economic inequality is inevitable
and justifiable. If the strong are, well, stronger than the weak, then
the strong will rule.
As John Stuart Mill noted in his argument for women’s rights, “[W]as
there ever any domination which did not appear natural to those who
possessed it?” For unjust hierarchies, and the illegitimate authority
that is exercised in them, maintaining their naturalness is essential.
Not surprisingly, people in the dominant class exercising the power
gravitate easily to such a view. And because of their power to control
key intellectual institutions (especially education and mass
communication), those in the dominant class can fashion a story about
the world that leads some portion of the people in the subordinated
class to internalize the ideology. A social order that violates almost
everyone’s basic principles is transformed into a natural order that
cannot be changed.
Rationalization #2: Celebrating Technology
Facing the ecological realities is even more overwhelming. People once
spoke of “environmental problems” that seemed limited and manageable,
but now the questions are about whether a large-scale human presence on
the planet will be viable within the foreseeable future. An honest
assessment of the state of the ecosphere is frightening, and it is
easier to believe that the world’s systems can magically continue rather
than thinking about how radical changes in those systems are necessary
-- and how even with such radical changes there is no guarantee that we
can avoid catastrophe.
That frightening possibility is why the culture in general, and
intellectuals in particular, are quick to embrace technological
fundamentalism, a form of magical thinking that promises a way out of
the problems that the extractive/industrial economy has created.
Technological fundamentalists believe that the increasing use of
evermore sophisticated high-energy advanced technology is always a good
thing and that any problems caused by the unintended consequences of
such technology eventually can be remedied by more technology. Perhaps
the ultimate example of this is “geo-engineering,” the belief that we
can intervene at the planetary level in the climate system to deal
effectively with global warming. Given massive human failure at much
lower levels of intervention, this approach -- which “offers the
tantalizing promise of a climate change fix that would allow us to
continue our resource-exhausting way of life, indefinitely” -- is,
quite literally, insane.
Those who question such “solutions” are often said to be
anti-technology, which is a meaningless insult. All human beings use
technology of some kind, whether stone tools or computers. An
anti-fundamentalist position does not assert that all technology is bad,
but that the introduction of new technology should be evaluated
carefully on the basis of its effects -- predictable and unpredictable
-- on human communities and the non-human world, with an understanding
of the limits of our knowledge. We have moved too far and too fast,
outstripping our capacity to manage the world we have created. The
answer is not some naïve return to a romanticized past, but a
recognition of what we have created and a systematic evaluation to
determine how to recover from our most dangerous missteps.
But the technological fundamentalists see no reason to consider such
things. They have faith in human cleverness. The title of a recent book
by an environmentalist -- The God Species: Saving the Planet in the Age
of Humans -- sums it up: Technological fundamentalists believe humans
can play God and control an infinitely complex universe with enough
competence to save not only ourselves but the planet. There’s nothing
new about that arrogance. In 1968, Stewart Brand began the Whole Earth
Catalog with that famous line, “We are as gods and might as well get
good at it.” Four decades later, with the evidence of human failure
piling up, Brand remained the loyal technological fundamentalist,
arguing that his suggestion had become an imperative: “We are as gods
and HAVE to get good at it.”
Our experience with the unintended consequences of modern technology is
fairly extensive. For example, there’s the case of automobiles and the
burning of petroleum in internal-combustion engines, which give us the
ability to travel considerable distances with a fair amount of
individual autonomy. This technology also has given us traffic jams and
road rage, strip malls and smog, while contributing to rapid climate
change that threatens sustainable life on the planet. We haven’t quite
figured out how to cope with these problems, and in retrospect it might
have been wise to go slower in the development of a system geared toward
private, individual transportation based on the car and spend more time
considering potential consequences.
Or how about CFCs and the ozone hole? Chlorofluorocarbons have a variety
of industrial, commercial, and household applications, including in air
conditioning. They were thought to be a miracle chemical when
introduced in the 1930s -- non-toxic, non-flammable, and non-reactive
with other chemical compounds. But in the 1980s, researchers began to
understand that while CFCs are stable in the troposphere, when they move
to the stratosphere and are broken down by strong ultraviolet light
they release chlorine atoms that deplete the ozone layer. This
unintended effect deflated the exuberance a bit. Depletion of the ozone
layer means that more UV radiation reaches the Earth’s surface, and
overexposure to UV radiation is a cause of skin cancer, cataracts, and
immune suppression.
But wait, the technological fundamentalists might argue, our experience
with CFCs refutes your argument -- humans got a handle on that one and
banned CFCs, and now the ozone hole is closing. These gases, which were
once commonly used in air-conditioning, were regulated in 1987 through
the Montreal Protocol, which has reduced damage to the ozone layer. The
oldest and most damaging CFC coolants have been largely eliminated from
use, and the newer hydrochlorofluorocarbons that are now widely used
have little or no effect on the ozone layer. That’s all true, but
unfortunately we now know that the HCFC gases contribute to global
warming. Scientists estimate that up to a quarter of all global warming
will be attributable to those gases by 2050, so that “the therapy to
cure one global environmental disaster is now seeding another.”
So the reasonable question is: If the dangerous HCFCs that replaced the
dangerous CFCs are replaced by a new chemical that appears harmless, how
long will it take before the dangerous effects of that replacement
become visible? There’s no way to predict, but it seems reasonable to
ask the question. Society didn’t react to the news about CFCs or HCFCs
by thinking about ways to step back from a developed world that has
become dependent on air conditioning, but instead continues to search
for replacements to keep the air conditioning running.
Intellectuals are in the business of assessing problems and offering
solutions. Technological fundamentalism allows intellectuals to offer
solutions that don’t threaten existing institutions and don’t make
demands on society in general, which allows intellectuals to retain
their status and level of comfort, at least in the short term. The
obvious problem is that if we look only for “solutions” that don’t
disturb existing systems, and those existing systems are unsustainable,
then our solutions are at best irrelevant and at worst will exacerbate
the fundamental problems and make it harder for people to imagine new
systems.
This is not an argument to abandon all attempts to improve technology,
stop exploring ways technology can contribute to a healthier planet, or
halt research on renewable energy. A sensible approach to our cascading
ecological crises is to pursue multiple strategies that mitigate the
worst of what exists today while planning for a radically different
tomorrow. Technological fundamentalism is dangerous because it
encourages us to focus on the former and ignore the latter.
The problem, succinctly stated: When intellectuals limit themselves to
inquiry that stays safely within existing systems, they are being
unrealistic. That claim turns the tables on establishment intellectuals,
who routinely criticize more radical colleagues for not being
realistic. But imagine that you are riding comfortably on a train. You
look out the window and see that not too far ahead the tracks end
abruptly and that the train will derail if it continues moving ahead.
You suggest that the train should stop immediately and that the
passengers go forward on foot. This will require a major shift in
everyone’s way of traveling, of course, but it appears to you to be the
only realistic option; to continue barreling forward is to guarantee
catastrophic consequences. But when you propose this course of action,
others who have grown comfortable riding on the train say, “Everybody
likes riding the train, and so telling us to get off is not realistic.”
In the contemporary United States, we are trapped in a similar delusion.
We are told that it is “realistic” to capitulate to the absurd idea
that the systems in which we live are the only systems possible because
some people like them and wish them to continue. But what if our current
level of First-World consumption is exhausting the ecological basis for
life? Too bad; the only “realistic” options are those that take that
lifestyle as non-negotiable. What if real democracy is not possible in a
nation-state with 300 million people? Too bad; the only “realistic”
options are those that take this way of organizing a polity as
immutable. What if the hierarchies on which our lives are based are
producing extreme material deprivation for subordinated people and a
kind of dull misery among the privileged? Too bad; the only “realistic”
options are those that accept hierarchy as inevitable.
The ultimate test of our intellectual abilities is whether we can face
the possibility that there may be no way out of these traps and yet
continue to work for a more just and sustainable world (more on that
later). That is not easy, but to be a responsible intellectual is to be
willing to get apocalyptic, and the first step in that process is to
give up on the myth of neutrality. Intellectuals shouldn’t claim to be
neutral, and the public shouldn’t take such claims seriously.
-----------------
Robert Jensen is a professor in the School of Journalism at the
University of Texas at Austin and board member of the Third Coast
Activist Resource Center in Austin. He is also the author of Arguing for
Our Lives: A User’s Guide to Constructive Dialogue,
http://www.amazon.com/Arguing-Our-Lives-Constructive-Dialog/dp/0872865738/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1361912779&sr=1-10.
Jensen can be reached at
rjensen@austin.utexas.edu and his articles can be found online at
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/index.html. To join an email list to receive articles by Jensen, go to
http://www.thirdcoastactivist.org/jensenupdates-info.html. Twitter: @jensenrobertw.
