How One Becomes A Liberal
for my friends in the SRI
I came across a sentiment that has come to ground my thinking on politics in Norman Rush's Mating some years ago. The argument was, how can one not be a liberal: at the bottom, whatever the rhetoric of radicals and progressives, when it comes down to brass tacks, most of us are liberals, in favor of the free exchange of ideas, commodities and travel, and the necessary infrastructure for these. I also noted the mantra about underdevelopment, that while capitalism was killing Africa, socialism would bury her. Yet there are few ways to dismiss an opponent, whether in actual politics or in academic politics, than to call them a "liberal." The general meaning of the term is that one is well-meaning but misguided; very misguided if one is called a neo-liberal.
This use of liberal as a snide dismissal of someone as politically ineffectual is common to the left and the right. And academic radicalism is not much better since it heavily emphasizes the academic rather than the radical; even marxist theories of academic production have had little effect on the structures of universities. Indeed, in the university, the prevailing culture itself is individualism, which is not in itself nefarious. The aim of the university is to have its students think for themselves, but then it stands to reasons that the teachers would also want to prove that they too think for themselves. The sometimes byzantine exercises in academic radicalsim do not easily lend themselves to the task of organizing social movements. One could be glib and say that while in the academy, what is prized is disarticulation, not necessarily a virtue when one is trying to organize a social movement.
In some ways, this problem is a matter of confusing semantics with politics: who cares what the name of thing is if it gets you to the place you want to be. But there is something more pernicious going on here. If anything, it shows that the left almost as much as the right demonizes collective (and therefore compromised) initiatives. Particularly in a time where change that is not incremental is almost impossible, more and more political capital goes to those who rail against the existing system. The existing system in the US is, by and large, liberalism (cf. the Republican's bizarre attempt at adding drugs to Medicare). The sad thing is that we all are liberals, still, but the demand for change is such that few people wish to admit it.
I came across a sentiment that has come to ground my thinking on politics in Norman Rush's Mating some years ago. The argument was, how can one not be a liberal: at the bottom, whatever the rhetoric of radicals and progressives, when it comes down to brass tacks, most of us are liberals, in favor of the free exchange of ideas, commodities and travel, and the necessary infrastructure for these. I also noted the mantra about underdevelopment, that while capitalism was killing Africa, socialism would bury her. Yet there are few ways to dismiss an opponent, whether in actual politics or in academic politics, than to call them a "liberal." The general meaning of the term is that one is well-meaning but misguided; very misguided if one is called a neo-liberal.
This use of liberal as a snide dismissal of someone as politically ineffectual is common to the left and the right. And academic radicalism is not much better since it heavily emphasizes the academic rather than the radical; even marxist theories of academic production have had little effect on the structures of universities. Indeed, in the university, the prevailing culture itself is individualism, which is not in itself nefarious. The aim of the university is to have its students think for themselves, but then it stands to reasons that the teachers would also want to prove that they too think for themselves. The sometimes byzantine exercises in academic radicalsim do not easily lend themselves to the task of organizing social movements. One could be glib and say that while in the academy, what is prized is disarticulation, not necessarily a virtue when one is trying to organize a social movement.
In some ways, this problem is a matter of confusing semantics with politics: who cares what the name of thing is if it gets you to the place you want to be. But there is something more pernicious going on here. If anything, it shows that the left almost as much as the right demonizes collective (and therefore compromised) initiatives. Particularly in a time where change that is not incremental is almost impossible, more and more political capital goes to those who rail against the existing system. The existing system in the US is, by and large, liberalism (cf. the Republican's bizarre attempt at adding drugs to Medicare). The sad thing is that we all are liberals, still, but the demand for change is such that few people wish to admit it.
posted by RobCrowe at 11:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home