>> Pol Pot was able to stay in power for only three and a half years, from
>> 1975 to 1978; Abimael Guzman never succeeded in taking state power. In
>> contrast to the literary and philosophical revolutionists, Fidel Castro,
>> a trained lawyer, has managed to remain in power since 1959. Alas,
>> reading law may be a superior preparation for a statesman than reading
>> literature or philosophy.
>> -- Yoshie
>
> While I share a healthy skepticism of the cultural politics of most
> Complit departments (as Terry Eagleton says, reinterpreting the role of
> women in Edith Wharton's Age of Innocence doesn't exactly emancipate
> factory workers), this topic needs more clarification. Besides all the
> relevant external circumstances that had an exponentially greater effect
> on these leaders' lives than their field of matriculation, this doesn't
> describe what it would be about disciplines like literary theory and
> philosophy that would make for incapable leaders. I know plenty of patent
> attorneys and ambulance chasers who would make awful revolutionaries; and
> the immigration and human rights lawyers are no less gassy than your
> average postcolonial theorist.
The above examples aside, I think it's mainly an issue of the quality of training and its applicability to real-world problems.
A lawyer has to be able to develop an argument that is a) valid within established law, b) persuasive, and c) with real-world effects (the defense or proseution of a client). They have to anticipate the arguments made by their opponents, work with the same evidence, and perhaps even defend a client who is guilty.
A doctor, however, has to be able to a) diagnose an illness, drawing from study of the medical literature, b) apply a remedy or a cure, again drawing on established scientific knowledge, as well as extensive training in the uses of drugs and surgical techniques, c) evaluate the scientific literature for new developments, and d) interact with patients in a manner that is professional, comforting, and mature, even when they must discuss the patient's mortality. Surgeons require years of training in the most delicate and exacting of tasks, with the lives and well-being of a patient at stake. Research physicians must also be able to develop scientific experimental protocols, assemble data, interpret it within the body of medical knowledge, and present it in a professional and exact manner.
An engineer must understand the properties of materials-- the tensile strengths of metals and woods and plastics, their properties, and how those properties change with changes in humidity and temperature. He or she must also be able to design complex structures which, simply, won't fall down, crash, burn, or fail in some other way. Engineers must also design complex machinery, frequently having to design individual components when tasks are especially novel or unprecedented. And engineers are, frequently, exceptionally creative people, who must find ways of abstracting complex tasks before developing mechanical methods to perform them.
A businessman-- loosely defined, from a single entrepreneur to an investment banker-- has to understand accounting and the reasoning behind cost-benefit analyses. He or she must maintain decent credit, respond to what his or her customers desire, watch the competition, and continually watch for new opportunities. They must be responsible for meeting payrolls, paying federal and state taxes, keeping licensing up-to-date, and much more. Higher up the food chain, they must pay attention to macroeconomic issues, investment opporunities, public relations and how they affect one's stock price, sources of investment capital, and the prospect of legislation that may impact the business.
A physicist has to understand, and develop, mathematical representations of real-world physics that are corroborated by experiment and logical consistency. A chemist must understand the properties of matter, as well as have a considerable background in some very powerful lab techniques.
Even in the trades, there is considerable skill and training involved. A woodworker has to understand wood, its movement and properties, and the means by which it is shaped, carved, assembled, and finished. An electrician has to understand electricity, loads, wire capabilities, and safety. A plumber has to be able to sweat joints, understand how water flows, pressure issues, and the machinery for cleaning drains.
None of the above qualify any one person to be a Great Statesman. And one needn't think that all of the above are especially noble professions. But all of the above are trades, and skills, which are continually tested against the Real World. Some, like doctors, lawyers, and engineers, have responsibility for a great deal of our general well-being, and their decisons affect the lives of others in profound ways. Others are simply trades, where they keep the machinery of our lives humming. But their labor affects the world, and when mistakes are made, the results are (frequently) obvious and profound.
Now... Let's take Literary Theory-- or, to be more inclusive, Cultural Studies. What does this involve? Reading texts, basically, and developing insights about these texts which others may find insightful. One theorist may read a novel, and ferret out patterns in the adjectives-- say, noting that "dark" is frequently used to describe bad things. Another might note that a character in a novel has a particular livelihood, and by researching that livelihood in the real world, he or she may come up with new ways to understand that character. Another might read a series of novels from a particular time period, or genre, and find common elements between them. Or they'll do this with movies, or radio plays, or music, or any other element of pop culture. Some are lucky enough to make a living doing this.
There's no _harm_ in doing this, obviously. Most of us do it, and the Web illustrates that nearly anyone can do this task at a fairly complex level. And frequently, the insights can be of use to people in other areas of their lives, possibly to their own benefit. But if a Cultural Studies person makes a mistake, or gets a fact wrong, or makes a bad argument... there's not much in the way of consequences. Are other people injured as a result? Nope. Is there any corrective for a bad theory (say, a fact that would falsify an argument)? Is there anything at _stake_ here?
In other words, it seems to be that a career in Cultural Studies is sort of like a nursery school, where one can indulge in play to one's heart's content, without having to worry about consequences or responsibilities because there _aren't_ any. That's fine-- good work if you can get it. I won't have much respect for it, and a career like that indicates that one really shouldn't take a role that _does_ have consequences and responsibilities. (Including parenthood, perhaps.)