Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

British anti-intellectualism

Really interesting article about the CIA and relationship with French Intellectualism - the CIA basically backing it as a way of move left discourse to the right...
worth reading in full - too many bits to quote from
http://thephilosophicalsalon.com/th...ctual-labor-of-dismantling-the-cultural-left/


"Even theoreticians who were not as opposed to Marxism as these intellectual reactionaries have made a significant contribution to an environment of disillusionment with transformative egalitarianism, detachment from social mobilization and “critical inquiry” devoid of radical politics. This is extremely important for understanding the CIA’s overall strategy in its broad and profound attempts to dismantle the cultural left in Europe and elsewhere. In recognizing it was unlikely that it could abolish it entirely, the world’s most powerful spy organization has sought to move leftist culture away from resolute anti-capitalist and transformative politics toward center-left reformist positions that are less overtly critical of US foreign and domestic policies.

In fact, as Saunders has demonstrated in detail, the Agency went behind the back of the McCarthy-driven Congress in the postwar era in order to directly support and promote leftist projects that steered cultural producers and consumers away from the resolutely egalitarian left. In severing and discrediting the latter, it also aspired to fragment the left in general, leaving what remained of the center left with only minimal power and public support (as well as being potentially discredited due to its complicity with right-wing power politics, an issue that continues to plague contemporary institutionalized parties on the left).
..
.....
........
The CIA’s reading of French theory should give us pause, then, to reconsider the radical chic veneer that has accompanied much of its Anglophone reception. According to a stagist conception of progressive history (which is usually blind to its implicit teleology), the work of figures like Foucault, Derrida and other cutting-edge French theorists is often intuitively affiliated with a form of profound and sophisticated critique that presumably far surpasses anything found in the socialist, Marxist or anarchist traditions. It is certainly true and merits emphasis that the Anglophone reception of French theory, as John McCumber has aptly pointed out, had important political implications as a pole of resistance to the false political neutrality, the safe technicalities of logic and language, or the direct ideological conformism operative in the McCarthy-supported traditions of Anglo-American philosophy.

However, the theoretical practices of figures who turned their back on what Cornelius Castoriadis called the tradition of radical critique—meaning anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist resistance—surely contributed to the ideological drift away from transformative politics. According to the spy agency itself, post-Marxist French theory directly contributed to the CIA’s cultural program of coaxing the left toward the right, while discrediting anti-imperialism and anti-capitalism, thereby creating an intellectual environment in which their imperial projects could be pursued unhindered by serious critical scrutiny from the intelligentsia."

====
In summary, if Ive understood it correctly, is: continental philosophy (the post-Marxist French theory bit) is a turn to the right, was 'backed' by the CIA (unclear how exactly), provides "radical chic veneer" over revolutionary substance, intellectuals do have a lot of power (recognised by the CIA) but that power can be co-opted and negative (to a left that wants meaningful change), and academia is being marketised with an eye on making left political education fade
 
Last edited:
I've only skimmed this shitshow of a thread, but it does make me remember earlier discussions about painting and poetry in which people sincerely argued against learning about the history and techniques of various art forms, on the basis that this book-learning was somehow not the right away to approach art. That's a quite different strain of anti-intellectualism, one that occurs among people who consider themselves educated, but educated just enough.
 
I've only skimmed this shitshow of a thread, but it does make me remember earlier discussions about painting and poetry in which people sincerely argued against learning about the history and techniques of various art forms, on the basis that this book-learning was somehow not the right away to approach art. That's a quite different strain of anti-intellectualism, one that occurs among people who consider themselves educated, but educated just enough.
Well, as fascinating as outsider art can be, whoever argues that is a fucking idiot.

There's still been nothing on here to convince me of an especial British anti-intellectual. Comparing us to France doesn't strike me as a very good comparator really, as no one comes close to adoring their intellectuals as much as they do. It's like saying multimillionaire David Cameron isn't rich because he hasn't got as much money as Trump.
 
This is fascinating - how the CIA has long studied and used the productions of the french deconstructionist theory stuff, watching closely and enthusiastically as the productions of European intellectualism has moved further and further away from action and up its own bum.
http://thephilosophicalsalon.com/th...ctual-labor-of-dismantling-the-cultural-left/
Particularly like those last 4 paragraphs of 'what is to be done'. [Which I might take over to chilango 's "lexit" ('what is to be done') thread?]

First of all, it should be a cogent reminder that if some presume that intellectuals are powerless, and that our political orientations do not matter, the organization that has been one of the most potent power brokers in contemporary world politics does not agree.

Second, the power brokers of the present have a vested interest in cultivating an intelligentsia whose critical acumen has been dulled or destroyed by fostering institutions founded on business and techno-science interests, equating left-wing politics with anti-scientificity, correlating science with a purported—but false—political neutrality, promoting media that saturate the airwaves with conformist prattle, sequestering strong leftists outside of major academic institutions and the media spotlight, and discrediting any call for radical egalitarian and ecological transformation.

...it is imperative to resist the precarization and vocationalization of education. It is equally important to create public spheres of truly critical debate, providing a broader platform for those who recognize that another world is not only possible, but is necessary.

Finally, intellectuals of the world should unite in recognizing our power and seizing upon it in order to do everything that we can to develop systemic and radical critique that is as egalitarian and ecological as it is anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist. The positions that one defends in the classroom or publicly are important for setting the terms of debate and charting the field of political possibility.

Go Gabriel!
 
Last edited:
Well, as fascinating as outsider art can be, whoever argues that is a fucking idiot.

There's still been nothing on here to convince me of an especial British anti-intellectual. Comparing us to France doesn't strike me as a very good comparator really, as no one comes close to adoring their intellectuals as much as they do. It's like saying multimillionaire David Cameron isn't rich because he hasn't got as much money as Trump.
It's not just the French. Bunch of young lads, working class lads, sat around reciting their love poetry and receiving sincere nods of appreciation in return. That will happen in Latin America. You'd have the piss ripped out of you if you tried it here.
 
The fledgling intelligentsia sided with/were integrated into the state. Any oppositional intellectuals in this country were organic w/c intellectuals who were formed by the social apartheid that early capitalism led to and that was the cultural bedrock of w/c culture in this country - and that is now returning. It's why british romanticism turned into snobby reactionary shit. The Wise brothers and E.P Thompson are the best people to read on this. On the continent the intelligentsia fought against the state and so were seen as on our side. The russian example is the most revealing.
 
Marx was a bourgeois, Engels even a damn capitalist - and...???

I mean, if ever I saw a "romanticised conceptual understanding" of it...

Today, like just about anything else in our rather developed, complex world, these issues are rather complex and it takes many years of study to actually understand issues properly and develop strategies to deal with them. Not easy, even for a pro, doing nothing else, let alone a prol, doing a good days work, coming home tired and not having the time needed to do it and be able to compare in all directions (how can s/he possibly have such an overview?!?). Going back to Aristotle with this one is a good start, I think!

And forget about us, "middle classes" being silent on the issues for whatever reasons! Anything and everything, everyone must be open to critique, critics included. So, some "pontificating" professors (professional intellectuals) are not exactly automatically an "opposition" to the working class contributors to civilisation and culture, when critiquing whatever might be coming from those quarters... They might even be right occasionally, you know... :rolleyes: On top of that, how do we know what is valuable "down there"? Is it published? Who publishes? Who judges? These are not exactly "automatic givens" and easy to answer Qs, are they?

Middle classes, the professionals in various areas of intellectual production, like it or not, are the arbiters of what is and what isn't "valuable", due to the fact they have the time, the education, the need, the aptitude etc. Of course, one can publicly disagree with them, their reception will depend on many things, world-view, education, interests, aptitude, school of thought, languages spoken, books read, political leanings and so on and on - but to view them in an unqualified manner as somehow automatically suspect and to imply only the working class can meaningfully judge what is coming from "their own quarters"... Uhhh...

At the very least many (professional) thinkers from the radical Left, no matter how "middle class" and "sitting on top of the academic food chain" may not exactly automatically be "the enemy", unappreciative of proletarian contributions to art, for instance - heck, they may even come from working class families and so on. That is, if they are "critically minded" about what is coming "from below", it does not mean they are automatically opposed to such contributions in a snobbish manner. But those contributions must also be critically evaluated. And who has the time, tools etc. to do it?

In other words, "top-down judgement" is a "must have also" today, you know. Even though sometimes they may be the only ones understanding some phenomenon properly, this does not automatically make them "enemies of the people"... If there is no space for a single person to stand up and say "You're all wrong, here is how things really are regarding...", even if it is a lonely professor - then, there is certainly an "anti-intellectual" atmosphere present!!!

But then, we have seen it since the days of Socrates, so nothing new under the Sun...
 
Really interesting article about the CIA and relationship with French Intellectualism - the CIA basically backing it as a way of move left discourse to the right...
worth reading in full - too many bits to quote from
http://thephilosophicalsalon.com/th...ctual-labor-of-dismantling-the-cultural-left/


"Even theoreticians who were not as opposed to Marxism as these intellectual reactionaries have made a significant contribution to an environment of disillusionment with transformative egalitarianism, detachment from social mobilization and “critical inquiry” devoid of radical politics. This is extremely important for understanding the CIA’s overall strategy in its broad and profound attempts to dismantle the cultural left in Europe and elsewhere. In recognizing it was unlikely that it could abolish it entirely, the world’s most powerful spy organization has sought to move leftist culture away from resolute anti-capitalist and transformative politics toward center-left reformist positions that are less overtly critical of US foreign and domestic policies.

In fact, as Saunders has demonstrated in detail, the Agency went behind the back of the McCarthy-driven Congress in the postwar era in order to directly support and promote leftist projects that steered cultural producers and consumers away from the resolutely egalitarian left. In severing and discrediting the latter, it also aspired to fragment the left in general, leaving what remained of the center left with only minimal power and public support (as well as being potentially discredited due to its complicity with right-wing power politics, an issue that continues to plague contemporary institutionalized parties on the left).
..
.....
........
The CIA’s reading of French theory should give us pause, then, to reconsider the radical chic veneer that has accompanied much of its Anglophone reception. According to a stagist conception of progressive history (which is usually blind to its implicit teleology), the work of figures like Foucault, Derrida and other cutting-edge French theorists is often intuitively affiliated with a form of profound and sophisticated critique that presumably far surpasses anything found in the socialist, Marxist or anarchist traditions. It is certainly true and merits emphasis that the Anglophone reception of French theory, as John McCumber has aptly pointed out, had important political implications as a pole of resistance to the false political neutrality, the safe technicalities of logic and language, or the direct ideological conformism operative in the McCarthy-supported traditions of Anglo-American philosophy.

However, the theoretical practices of figures who turned their back on what Cornelius Castoriadis called the tradition of radical critique—meaning anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist resistance—surely contributed to the ideological drift away from transformative politics. According to the spy agency itself, post-Marxist French theory directly contributed to the CIA’s cultural program of coaxing the left toward the right, while discrediting anti-imperialism and anti-capitalism, thereby creating an intellectual environment in which their imperial projects could be pursued unhindered by serious critical scrutiny from the intelligentsia."

====
In summary, if Ive understood it correctly, is: continental philosophy (the post-Marxist French theory bit) is a turn to the right, was 'backed' by the CIA (unclear how exactly), provides "radical chic veneer" over revolutionary substance, intellectuals do have a lot of power (recognised by the CIA) but that power can be co-opted and negative (to a left that wants meaningful change), and academia is being marketised with an eye on making left political education fade
I stopped reading the original CIA paper on that when it described M. Foucault as an anthropologist, which he most certainly was not.
 
Marx was a bourgeois, Engels even a damn capitalist - and...???

I mean, if ever I saw a "romanticised conceptual understanding" of it...

Today, like just about anything else in our rather developed, complex world, these issues are rather complex and it takes many years of study to actually understand issues properly and develop strategies to deal with them. Not easy, even for a pro, doing nothing else, let alone a prol, doing a good days work, coming home tired and not having the time needed to do it and be able to compare in all directions (how can s/he possibly have such an overview?!?). Going back to Aristotle with this one is a good start, I think!

And forget about us, "middle classes" being silent on the issues for whatever reasons! Anything and everything, everyone must be open to critique, critics included. So, some "pontificating" professors (professional intellectuals) are not exactly automatically an "opposition" to the working class contributors to civilisation and culture, when critiquing whatever might be coming from those quarters... They might even be right occasionally, you know... :rolleyes: On top of that, how do we know what is valuable "down there"? Is it published? Who publishes? Who judges? These are not exactly "automatic givens" and easy to answer Qs, are they?

Middle classes, the professionals in various areas of intellectual production, like it or not, are the arbiters of what is and what isn't "valuable", due to the fact they have the time, the education, the need, the aptitude etc. Of course, one can publicly disagree with them, their reception will depend on many things, world-view, education, interests, aptitude, school of thought, languages spoken, books read, political leanings and so on and on - but to view them in an unqualified manner as somehow automatically suspect and to imply only the working class can meaningfully judge what is coming from "their own quarters"... Uhhh...

At the very least many (professional) thinkers from the radical Left, no matter how "middle class" and "sitting on top of the academic food chain" may not exactly automatically be "the enemy", unappreciative of proletarian contributions to art, for instance - heck, they may even come from working class families and so on. That is, if they are "critically minded" about what is coming "from below", it does not mean they are automatically opposed to such contributions in a snobbish manner. But those contributions must also be critically evaluated. And who has the time, tools etc. to do it?

In other words, "top-down judgement" is a "must have also" today, you know. Even though sometimes they may be the only ones understanding some phenomenon properly, this does not automatically make them "enemies of the people"... If there is no space for a single person to stand up and say "You're all wrong, here is how things really are regarding...", even if it is a lonely professor - then, there is certainly an "anti-intellectual" atmosphere present!!!

But then, we have seen it since the days of Socrates, so nothing new under the Sun...
62351587.jpg
 
It there has historically been an anti-intellectualism strain to British thought and culture (one of many strains running parallel to one another, and never one that was uncontested), which I think there has, and if it has at least in part been a reaction to things happening elsewhere, I would think it must itself contain a very strong 'top-down' element to it.

The Tory party, for instance, has long contained a crude philistine streak.
 
It there has historically been an anti-intellectualism strain to British thought and culture (one of many strains running parallel to one another, and never one that was uncontested), which I think there has, and if it has at least in part been a reaction to things happening elsewhere, I would think it must itself contain a very strong 'top-down' element to it.

The Tory party, for instance, has long contained a crude philistine streak.
I think this is a good point. I come across few more anti-intellectual than those who went to Rugby or Eton, actually, if you want to really push to the other end of society. It seems to be part of the indoctrination and dehumanisation of those groomed to rule. Don't question, just embrace society and your place in it at the top.
 
I think this is a good point. I come across few more anti-intellectual than those who went to Rugby or Eton, actually, if you want to really push to the other end of society. It seems to be part of the indoctrination and dehumanisation of those groomed to rule. Don't question, just embrace society and your place in it at the top.
In fact, thinking about it, I think I got my earlier post slightly wrong. The comparison should just be a group of lads in Latin America reciting poetry to one another with a group of lads of any class in the UK doing the same, not just, or even especially, working class lads. (I made that particular comparison due to a personal experience in LA, which was with w/c lads.) I can think of fewer more boorish institutions than rugby clubs, which are not exactly bastions of working class culture.
 
In fact, thinking about it, I think I got my earlier post slightly wrong. The comparison should just be a group of lads in Latin America reciting poetry to one another with a group of lads of any class in the UK doing the same, not just, or even especially, working class lads. (I made that particular comparison due to a personal experience in LA, which was with w/c lads.) I can think of fewer more boorish institutions than rugby clubs, which are not exactly bastions of working class culture.
And this is true even at university itself. Whilst the working class and middle class kids I mixed with at the time were those that embraced teenage intellectualism -- that was why they were there in the first place -- the public school kids had their own drinking societies and sports clubs and viewed study as an irritating adjunct to the serious business of continuing what they had started when they got sent off to boarding school for at the age of 9.
 
Marx was a bourgeois, Engels even a damn capitalist - and...???

I mean, if ever I saw a "romanticised conceptual understanding" of it...

Today, like just about anything else in our rather developed, complex world, these issues are rather complex and it takes many years of study to actually understand issues properly and develop strategies to deal with them. Not easy, even for a pro, doing nothing else, let alone a prol, doing a good days work, coming home tired and not having the time needed to do it and be able to compare in all directions (how can s/he possibly have such an overview?!?). Going back to Aristotle with this one is a good start, I think!

And forget about us, "middle classes" being silent on the issues for whatever reasons! Anything and everything, everyone must be open to critique, critics included. So, some "pontificating" professors (professional intellectuals) are not exactly automatically an "opposition" to the working class contributors to civilisation and culture, when critiquing whatever might be coming from those quarters... They might even be right occasionally, you know... :rolleyes: On top of that, how do we know what is valuable "down there"? Is it published? Who publishes? Who judges? These are not exactly "automatic givens" and easy to answer Qs, are they?

Middle classes, the professionals in various areas of intellectual production, like it or not, are the arbiters of what is and what isn't "valuable", due to the fact they have the time, the education, the need, the aptitude etc. Of course, one can publicly disagree with them, their reception will depend on many things, world-view, education, interests, aptitude, school of thought, languages spoken, books read, political leanings and so on and on - but to view them in an unqualified manner as somehow automatically suspect and to imply only the working class can meaningfully judge what is coming from "their own quarters"... Uhhh...

At the very least many (professional) thinkers from the radical Left, no matter how "middle class" and "sitting on top of the academic food chain" may not exactly automatically be "the enemy", unappreciative of proletarian contributions to art, for instance - heck, they may even come from working class families and so on. That is, if they are "critically minded" about what is coming "from below", it does not mean they are automatically opposed to such contributions in a snobbish manner. But those contributions must also be critically evaluated. And who has the time, tools etc. to do it?

In other words, "top-down judgement" is a "must have also" today, you know. Even though sometimes they may be the only ones understanding some phenomenon properly, this does not automatically make them "enemies of the people"... If there is no space for a single person to stand up and say "You're all wrong, here is how things really are regarding...", even if it is a lonely professor - then, there is certainly an "anti-intellectual" atmosphere present!!!

But then, we have seen it since the days of Socrates, so nothing new under the Sun...


Clearly, the abolition of class society is not an intellectual affair.
 
In fact, thinking about it, I think I got my earlier post slightly wrong. The comparison should just be a group of lads in Latin America reciting poetry to one another with a group of lads of any class in the UK doing the same, not just, or even especially, working class lads. (I made that particular comparison due to a personal experience in LA, which was with w/c lads.) I can think of fewer more boorish institutions than rugby clubs, which are not exactly bastions of working class culture.
union or league? it makes a difference.
 
Clearly, the abolition of class society is not an intellectual affair.

Clearly, you do not understand it.

Just to add: those at the top, "ruling", "managing their domain" simply do not have the time, either - they are busy "preserving" their privileges...

P.S. Panda, you obviously are not "it", what with such "arguments" and "contributions"...
 
Dole culture of the 80s and 90s produced a fair amount of intellectual activity. Would that count for you, gorski, or are is it too far outside the 'academy'?
 
You appear to have high regard for the official academy structures and what you would call a 'pro'. But the world of ideas is clearly far wider than that.

And some of the most valuable intellectuals have also needed to earn a living - great to be freed from that, and no coincidence that many great figures in the history of thought have had some freedom from work, but by no means a necessary thing. Indeed one's need to work can inform one's intellectual life - I would think of someone like Primo Levi here. Absence of the need to work is not always even an advantage, given that it may leave you innocent of important parts of life.
 
Crikey. You assume way too much for your own good! I am from a prol family and I have worked for a living, many a time, all sorts of jobs, from quite early on in my life, never being as snobbish as you now are in an inverse manner.

Having some professional pride and self-respect (i.e. not being an intellectual push-over or pretending to be very "easy going and tolerant") and defending one's labour of love passionately, since one gives at least half of one's life to it, does not automatically equal a "nasty academic"!

There's ample criticism of 'academy' and academics. Many criticisms are very true and easily understandable by anyone, so I am not - as implied - uncritical regarding the whole machinery, its structures, institutions and processes. I certainly never "championed" anything uncritically - and neither do I have everything and everybody "academic" in high regard etc. Slow down, qualify your sentences, think about it a bit, BEFORE you embarrass yourself like this...

But in this context one is dealing with its opposite, so stick to the subject matter, please. Stop the individual rubbish attacks under the table. I dare you and all like you!

Btw, that article ( Anti-intellectualism at the Heart of British National Identity - HTTP ) is a good starting point for sure, coupled with the other one on CIA's involvement with some French philosophers etc.
 
Your posts are tricky to unpack. It wasn't intended as a personal attack, btw, merely a response to the idea here:

In other words, "top-down judgement" is a "must have also" today, you know. Even though sometimes they may be the only ones understanding some phenomenon properly, this does not automatically make them "enemies of the people"...

You've said similar on other threads concerning a need to study for years and years to be able to even take part in a debate. Not a personal attack, but certainly a questioning of such a rotten idea.
 
It there has historically been an anti-intellectualism strain to British thought and culture (one of many strains running parallel to one another, and never one that was uncontested), which I think there has, and if it has at least in part been a reaction to things happening elsewhere, I would think it must itself contain a very strong 'top-down' element to it.

The Tory party, for instance, has long contained a crude philistine streak.

Conservative (both the party and the inclination) philosophy itself has, too. Someone upthread mentioned Edmund Burke, who was known for his attacks not only on the French Revolution and support for the impeachment of Warren Hastings, but also marked by biographers as being suspicious of "cleverness", despite his own (or perhaps because of it?).
 
I think this is a good point. I come across few more anti-intellectual than those who went to Rugby or Eton, actually, if you want to really push to the other end of society. It seems to be part of the indoctrination and dehumanisation of those groomed to rule. Don't question, just embrace society and your place in it at the top.

And yet, above all, we're "questioning" creatures, many of for whom not questioning is an exertion, rather than a default setting.

Yet another revelation of the decadence of the "ruling classes", perhaps? :)
 
Back
Top Bottom