>And not just "in the professional association," since those battles were
>linked to and in turn overflowed into political battles _not_ just 'on
>campus' but in the wider communities, and a good deal of left political
>activity in the intervening 35 +/- years had its origin in those merely
>academic battles in a cream bowl.
I wouldn't want to take away from what happened on campus. But I lean more towards Chomsky's take that movements make it to campus later rather than sooner. I was also mostly responding to the good intellectual/bad intellectual lines being drawn based on anecdotal war stories. And war stories is a fitting description of an account relating "intellectual and political combat". Seems a good time to recirculate something (below) from Foucault that I first saw when it was posted here.
>I've enjoyed reading most of Dennis Claxton's posts, but this is silly.
It's nice to be noticed. ; )
>Duccio Trombadori: But still apropos of polemics, you have also
>stated clearly that you don't like and will not accept those kinds
>of arguments "which mimic war and parody justice." Could you explain
>to me more clearly what you meant by saying this?
>
>Michel Foucault: What is tiresome in ideological arguments is that
>one is necessarily swept away by the "model of war." That is to say
>that when you find yourself facing someone with ideas different from
>your own, you are always led to identify that person as an enemy (of
>your class, your society, etc.). And we know that it is necessary to
>wage combat against the enemy until triumphing over him. This grand
>theme of ideological struggle has really disturbed me. First of all
>because the theoretical coordinates of each of us are often, no,
>always, confused and fluctuating, especially if they are observed in
>their genesis.
>
>Furthermore: might not this "struggle" that one tries to wage
>against the "enemy" only be a way of making a petty dispute without
>much importance seem more serious than it really is? I mean, don't
>certain intellectuals hope to lend themselves greater political
>weight with their "ideological struggle" than they really have? A
>book is consumed very quickly, you know. An article, well.... What
>is more serious: acting out a struggle against the "enemy," or
>investigating, together or perhaps divergently, the important
>problems that are posed? And then I'll tell you: I find this "model
>of war" not only a bit ridiculous but also rather dangerous. Because
>by virtue of saying or thinking "I'm fighting against the enemy," if
>one day you found yourself in a position of strength, and in a
>situation of real war, in front of this blasted "enemy," wouldn't
>you actually treat him as one?