On 12/11/06, sean.andrews <cultstud76 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Therefore trying to consider the issue from a more complex
> standpoint, using an updated version of these psychological theories
> (i.e. through Lacan) and a set of semiotic concepts more attuned to the
> current circumstances.
Certainly. The critical study of propaganda certainly strikes me as worthwhile. So does critical study of the intellectual classes.
Take Lacan, who you just mentioned. Even the self-described "card-carrying Lacanian," Zizek, claimed that he actively tries to mentally repress Lacan's fakery and false obscurity, while interpreting Lacan's more legitimate body of work. (What a burden it must be to interpret such a chimeric half-scholar/half-charlatan, while maintaining some semblance of integrity!)
> I'd also point out that intellectuals, particularly those on the left or
> who vaguely feel that they should be, are almost annoyingly vigilant in
> their consideration of how they do or do not support the dominant
> interests of gender, race, capital, class, etc.
Not only that, but I hear they have a class tendency to think of capitalists as buffoons. Their institutional role may be to uphold dominant interests, but their class interests lie elsewhere. To the extent that their jobs are cushier and more privileged than the working class', many have quite some latitude in their jobs.
(An analogy is how some dictators have to worry about their priesthoods' power.)
In fact, the definition of "class" requires class antagonisms. (As I mentioned earlier.) And one ultimate class interest is a society where intellectuals and technocrats dominate. As with Djilas' New Class, which ruled Communist nations and jailed him for his writings.
> (I'd also note that the
> idea of intellectuals as a "class" doesn't seem very precise, but maybe
> I don't understand the context in which you're using it.)
I doubt there's anything precise about the social sciences. Even in the hard sciences, physicists point out their knowledge is necessarily imprecise and approximate. And mathematicians didn't pin down concepts like "functions" except when necessity required more clarity, if I understand my history correctly.
So sure, you'll find people which are hard to place in a particular class. (Especially considering how the bottom is falling out of the professional-managerial class, as Ehrenreich claims...)
> >> I guess you could throw
> >> them all in the same bag and drown the lot in the river, but that seems
> >> to be a bit counter productive and, as many have said, somewhat
> >> anti-intellectual.
> >>
> > Is that the intellectual class's version of "anti-Americanism"? Just
> > as capitalists aren't fond of class analysis, I can hardly expect
> > intellectuals to enjoy this sort of analysis turned on their class
> > interests. Simply look at the bitter denunciations of Chomsky by those
> > he criticizes.
>
> This is basically saying that Chomsky (like all the 9/11 conspiracy
> theorists) are validated as correct simply because they are critiqued
> (or ignored).
With all due respect, that's an odd interpretation of my words. Quite some hermeneutics-fu you got goin' there! ;-)
Tayssir