1
   

Subordination to power: Follow the money

 
 
coberst
 
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2008 01:46 am
Subordination to power: Follow the money

"The capitulation of Western man to his technology, with its crescendo of specialized demands has always appeared to many observers of our world as a kind of enslavement."

No more are intellectuals focused upon the nature of man in society. Intellectuals have become non intellectual specialists?-hired guns of CA (Corporate America)?-Vulcan

Vulcanization?-the process of treating crude or synthetic material chemically to give it useful properties.

All thought is saturated with egocentric and sociocentric presuppositions. That is, all thought contains highly motivating bias centered in the self or in ideologies such as political, religious, and economic theories. Some individuals are conscious of these internal forces but most people are not.

Those individuals who are conscious of these biases within their thinking can try to rid their judgments of that influence. Those who are not conscious, or little conscious of such bias, are bound to display a significant degree of irrational tendencies in their judgments.

"Can the intellectual, who is supposed to have a special and perhaps professional concern with truth, escape from or rise above the partiality and distortions of ideology?"

Our culture has tended to channel intellectuals, or perhaps more properly those who function as intellectuals, into academic professions. Gramsci makes the accurate distinction that all men and women "are intellectualsÂ…but all do not have the function of intellectuals in society".

An intellectual might be properly defined as those who are primarily or professionally concerned with matters of the mind and the imagination but who are socially non-attached. "The intellectual is thought of not as someone who displays great mental or imaginative ability but as someone who applies those abilities in more general areas such as religion, philosophy and social and political issues. It is the involvement in general and controversy outside of a specialization that is considered as the hallmark of an intellectual; it is a matter of choice of self definition, choice is supreme here."

Even anti-ideological is ideological. If partisanship can be defended servility cannot; many have allowed themselves to become the tools of others.

We have moved into an age when the university is no longer an ivory tower and knowledge is king but knowledge has become a commodity and educators have become instruments of power; the university has become a privately owned think-tank.

"A profound change in the intellectual community itself is inherent in this development. The largely humanist-oriented, occasionally ideological minded intellectual dissenter , who saw his role largely in terms of proffering social critiques, is rapidly being displaced either by experts and specialist, who become involved in special government undertakings, or by generalist-integrators, who become house-ideologues for those in power, providing overall intellectual integration for disparate actions."

The subordination to power is not just at the individual level but also at the institutional level. Government funds are made available to universities and colleges not for use as they deem fit but for specific government needs. Private industry plays even a larger role in providing funds for educational institutions to perform management and business study. Private industry is not inclined ?'to waste' money on activities that do not contribute to the bottom line. ?'He who pays the piper calls the tune.'

Each intellectual is spouting a different ideology, how does the individual choose what ideology? Trotsky once said "only a participant can be a profound spectator". Is detachment then a virtue? To suggest that intellectuals rise above ideology is impractical. Explicit commitment is preferable to bogus neutrality. But truth is an indispensable touchstone.

I think that the proper role for the intellectual is commitment plus detachment. Do you think many of our present day intellectuals qualify as committed and detached?


Quotes and ideas from "Knowledge and Belief in Politics" Bhikhu Parekh
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 920 • Replies: 11
No top replies

 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2008 05:06 am
Coberst, you are obviously commited but not detached.

I'm the other way around..

According to your premises, we don't qualify as intellectuals...
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2008 10:06 am
Francis wrote:
Coberst, you are obviously commited but not detached.

I'm the other way around..

According to your premises, we don't qualify as intellectuals...


You might be correct. It is very difficult to be balanced. In fact I guess complete balance is not possible. However, if one comprehends the nature of ideology and the human inclinations one can do a better job than if one is ignorant of these matters.

My complaint is that we have few intellectuals left to take up the important task of social critique. Th detachment must be from power and not from cairng about the society.
0 Replies
 
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2008 01:04 pm
Re: Subordination to power: Follow the money
Quote:
An intellectual might be properly defined as those who are primarily or professionally concerned with matters of the mind and the imagination but who are socially non-attached[/u]. "The intellectual is thought of not as someone who displays great mental or imaginative ability but as someone who applies those abilities in more general areas such as religion, philosophy and social and political issues[/u]."


These two sentences contradict each other.


Coberst wrote:
We have moved into an age when the university is no longer an ivory tower and knowledge is king but knowledge has become a commodity and educators have become instruments of power; the university has become a privately owned think-tank.


Which universities do you have in mind, Coberst? You might get a more productive discussion going if you give specific examples of particular institutions and what, exactly, they're doing to make you think they have compromised their status as places of disinterested education.


Coberst wrote:
Government funds are made available to universities and colleges not for use as they deem fit but for specific government needs. Private industry plays even a larger role in providing funds for educational institutions to perform management and business study.


A token example of selective reporting and confirmation bias. You may be correct that government private industry is providing more funds to institutions now than in the past (though you have not provided evidence of this, and I daresay you'll meet some resistance against the former from people involved with the University of California right now), but you have conveniently refrained from reporting that funds are also coming from individual donors and non-corporate entities, some of whom have explicitly not directed their contributions to any specific project or field. In the last six months alone, several institutions (including Harvard University, Brown University, and Bowdoin College) have announced contributions and endowments that have allowed them to replace student loans with grants and fellowships in an effort to widen, not isolate, higher education. Almost a decade ago, the Yale School of Music (which, I would think, represents exactly the kind of "disinterested" intellectual endeavor that you applaud and find sorely undervalued in American society) received an endowment large enough to waive tuition for all students entirely.

In other words, the picture might not be as bleak as you persistently make it if you reported all the evidence rather than just the negative stuff, Coberst.
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Mar, 2008 10:51 am
Arnold Toynbee wrote a "Study of History', which "is the longest written work ever composed in the English languageÂ…In it he traces the birth, growth and decay of some 21 to 23 major civilizations in the world."

"He argues that for civilizations to be born, the challenge must be a golden mean; that excessive challenge will crush the civilization, and too little challenge will cause it to stagnate. He argues that growth is driven by "Creative Minorities," who lead the uncreative masses by example (called "mimesis")."

"He argues that the breakdown of civilizations is not caused by loss of control over the environment, over the human environment, or attacks from outside, but from the deterioration of the "Creative Minority" (who leads the uncreative majority by example) into a "Dominant Minority" (who forces the majority to obey without meriting obedience). He argues that creative minorities deteriorate due to a worship of their "former self," by which they become prideful, and fail to adequately address the next challenge they face. He argues that a civilization has broken down is when it forms a "Universal State," which stifles political creativity."

"He argues that as civilizations decay, they form an "Internal Proletariat" and an "External Proletariat." The Internal proletariat is held in subjugation by the dominant minority inside the civilization, and grows bitter; the external proletariat exists outside the civilization in poverty and chaos, and grows envious. He argues that as civilizations decay, there is a "schism in the body social," whereby abandon and self-control replace creativity, and truancy and martyrdom replace discipleship by the creative minority."

In "Understanding Media" McLuhan notes Toynbee's "explanation of how the lame and the crippled respond to their handicaps in a society of active warriors. They become specialists like Vulcan, the smith and armorer. And how do whole communities act when conquered and enslaved? The same strategy serves them as it does the lame individual in a society of warriors. They specialize and become indispensable to their masters. It is probably the long human history of enslavement, and the collapse into specialism as a counter-irritant, that have put the stigma of servitude and pusillanimity on the figure of the specialist, even in modern times. The capitulation of Western man to his technology, with its crescendo of specialized demands has always appeared to many observers of our world as a kind of enslavement."

I argue that the ?'Creative Minority' consists of the university professors and the techno-graduates of our universities who have become specialists for Corporate America. These intellectuals have become ?'hired guns' for Corporate America.

These quotations regarding "The Study of History" are from:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclope..._of_history.htm
0 Replies
 
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Mar, 2008 12:25 pm
coberst wrote:
I argue that the ?'Creative Minority' consists of the university professors and the techno-graduates of our universities who have become specialists for Corporate America. These intellectuals have become ?'hired guns' for Corporate America.


I'll try again: Which universities do you have in mind, Coberst? You might get a more productive discussion going if you give specific examples of particular institutions and what, exactly, they're doing to make you think they have compromised their status as places of disinterested education.

If you're serious about wanting to engage in "social critique," then you're going to have to get over your fear of giving examples. Since "society" is a network of human interactions and transactions, you're not critiquing any actual societies at all if you leave those out and rely instead on abstractions and phantom concepts like "Corporate America." Quoting Toynbee will not help you. The difference between you and Toynbee is that Toynbee names names; in the societies he studies, things happen because real people are actually doing things, not because abstract concepts like "capitalism" magically cause things to occur. You might want to consider following his lead. I'm giving you a very accessible opportunity to do so: just name one academic institution that fits the description you've given here, so that we have something to work with. If the "problem" you're diagnosing is as widespread as you say it is, then this should be no problem.
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2008 06:30 am
Shapless

I have no examples to provide you. I am stating my conclusions developed from much reading. I have not kept copies of those readings that might serve as examples.
0 Replies
 
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2008 09:36 am
It's not the readings I'm interested in so much as the schools. Did your readings mention a single school? Even one?
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2008 11:39 am
Shapeless wrote:
It's not the readings I'm interested in so much as the schools. Did your readings mention a single school? Even one?


Bloom mentioned several Ivy League schools but I do not remember which ones.
0 Replies
 
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2008 08:35 pm
Well, I mentioned three Ivies in my comments above, so I would be interested to hear how you or Bloom would account for this information. That's the only way to get at a social critique that matters: by studying real-life instances rather than abstract placeholders.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2008 09:05 pm
Quote:
Canada's largest and most richly endowed university, the University of Toronto, signed secret deals in 1997 with the Joseph Rotman Foundation ($15 million for the Faculty of Management Studies), CEO Peter Munk of Barrick Gold and Horsham corporations ($6.4 million for the Centre for International Studies) and Nortel ($8 million for the Nortel Institute for Telecommunications). The deals allow the corporations unprecedented influe nce over the academic direction of University of Toronto programmes.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1310/is_2001_Nov/ai_80865224
Quote:
From Booklist
Soley returns fire here in the escalating battle between liberals and conservatives over "political correctness" on college campuses, university curricula, and control of the U.S. educational agenda. He confronts Dinesh D'Souza, author of Illiberal Education (1991), and Roger Kimball, author of Tenured Radicals (1990), head-on; and he charges that the debate over "political correctness" is a red herring. Soley counters that big business, the military, and conservative think tanks have taken control of major campuses, such as Columbia, MIT, Brigham Young, and Michigan State. He argues that many universities have become research and development centers for major corporations and that almost all money donated to universities comes with strings. He also targets professors who spend more time consulting than teaching and university presidents more familiar with corporate boardrooms than classrooms. Soley documents his accusations and observations well, and his book will provide balance to any collections recently dominated by a barrage of conservative works. David Rouse -

http://www.amazon.com/Leasing-Ivory-Tower-Corporate-Takeover/dp/0896085031
0 Replies
 
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2008 10:07 pm
Anonymous Challenge Gift To Provide $5 Million For Arts Grounds (U. Virginia)

Civic Knowledge Project receives $1 million anonymous gift (U. Chicago)

Overview of contributions to American Art collections (Princeton)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Subordination to power: Follow the money
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/20/2026 at 11:56:23