The Role(s) of the Radical Intellectual in (R)evolutionary Action

Empowerment: Power through knowledge. To “empower” can mean to “enable” or it can mean to “permit.” I introduce this piece with multiple definitions of empowerment because the act of enabling and the act of permitting are very different forms of action. They are actions which a “radical intellectual” can take on behalf of (r)evolution. You may ask, why bother with such questions? I see the need for (r)evolutionary action to counteract the most oppressive, contradictory aspect of the modern society in which we live: Our ever-increasing reliance on experts and specialists to differentiate and discern the world for us.

The reader of this article may become confused about my position relative to the role of the radical intellectual. This article should not be considered a critique of roles, or even revolution. I am not calling for the mass refusal of roles or an abandonment of revolutionary ideals. Those on the political left often take roles, revolution and revolutionary roles for granted. Energy is spent mastering theories of oppression or conspiracies. Very sophisticated languages to name and label structures are developed. Meanwhile, those outside of those discussions are left on the outside, alienated from the very knowledges which could, ultimately, empower and liberate. This article should not be considered “anti-intellectual” or “anti- theoretical.” Consider this a challenge to those who have assumed the role, or who are considering taking on the role, of the radical intellectual.

We are immersed in a technocratic culture that is continually achieving ever-increasing states of complexity. This complexity needs to be managed. . .controlled if you will. To do this controlling and managing we rely on experts. This increasing dependence on expert knowledge to mediate the technocratic culture for us constitutes power relationships. Those holding the knowledge or information control the power, and ultimately control how we live our lives. One need only look to our centers of media to see this demonstrated. Consider the recent presidential election and the unabashed endorsement of Bill Clinton for president by the national media. Think back a little further and remember how the Persian Gulf War was presented to us in sanitary, pre-packaged news stories. Experts in information gathering and dispersal determine what is best for us to know. This activity shapes our perceptions and subsequently our opinions.

It should become evident why, then, my concerns over roles for radicals should encompass this issue of experts. One can become an expert in “revolution.” One can become an expert in social change (in some “progressive” schools of higher education you can major in social change). One can become an expert in community organizing (and be taught methods to empower poor people). Radicals have their own newspapers; they have their own journals, and conferences, and computer networks. Radicals have grown dependent on some of the very structures that other, less radical or anti- radical, experts have come to depend upon to certify their expertise.

Since this article is being written for a radical newspaper/magazine there should be plenty of examples I can draw upon to make my point. And because I am writing this piece as a radical intellectual I must first admit to my own contradictions and hypocrisies. I offer this acknowledgment not as an apology for the role(s) I have assumed, nor under the illusion that the positions I take outside of this article will serve to lessen our collective dependencies on experts.

So with this disclaimer set in place let me share with you the irony of it all: In one sense or another I am asserting my role as an expert in (r)evolutionary actions designed to counteract the domination of experts. This irony can be understood in this quote by Trinh Minh-ha:

Theory oppresses, when it wills or perpetuates existing power relations, when it presents itself as a means to exert authority or the Voice of Knowledge. In the passage from the heard, seen, smelled, tasted, and touched to the told and the written, language has taken place. To declare, for example, that so-and-so is an authority on such-and-such matter is to lose sight of the radicalness of writing and theorizing.

In an attempt to lessen your dependence on my knowledge, and instill some radicalness to my writing, I will draw upon the technique called “deconstruction.” I wish to bypass the debates over post- modernism’s usefulness to (r)evolution and simply use some of the insights of post-modernism to make ideas and knowledges more accessible to people.

“The Role(s)”

Sociological experts have gone to great lengths to develop knowledges about how societies are formed. Some feel that the “glue” of a society is that people assume roles. A role is a function, a slot we fit into to perform some (social, political, economic) activity. Roles exist in our families: There are mother roles, father roles, and sibling roles. We assume roles to get from one place to another: There are pedestrian roles and driver roles. We are educated assuming other roles: There are student roles and teacher roles. And of course we assume roles when we enter the work world: There are subordinate roles and boss roles. (Marxists would characterize these as capitalists roles and workers roles.)

Sociological experts have gone to great lengths to develop theories of roles. Some argue that each person assumes any number of roles during his or her lifetime, or even at different moments of the day. We may start out life in a family and take on the son or daughter role, and then eventually take on the mother or father role when we start a family of our own. We may switch roles from that of pedestrian to that of driver many times during the same day. As our careers “advance” we may move from a role of subordinate to that of boss.

Some sociological experts also claim that we take on various roles within our personal lives. Some experts have described these interpersonal roles as “front stage” and “back stage” activities. While on the front stage we make ourselves appear as we wish to appear to the public by assuming public roles. Our back stage roles are more private, perhaps a time to be “more like ourselves.”

The point to be made is that, from a sociological standpoint, we take on many roles during the course of a day and/or a lifetime. However, this emphasis on multiple roles is often criticized by many radical intellectuals. Some, (particularly some of the “Orthodox Marxists” who write for this paper), claim that one role in particular is more relevant than any other role we may assume: The role(s) we associate with the worker/capitalist relationship. This role, they claim, dictates how any other roles we may assume get constructed. In a sense, talk of multiple role distracts us away from what should be our only focus of concern: How class roles relate to oppression. The same argument is often leveled by those concerned about sexism, racism, homophobia and the like. Always one role in particular is considered to be the most relevant to the construction of oppressive structures. What can happen is that debates are waged over which role or “ism” is paramount. Often there are attempts to link all “isms” to one, “totalizing” theory. (From the Orthodox Marxist position this theory is based on the material conditions of capitalist exploitation. From an orthodox feminist position this theory is based on patriarchy, and similarly for white [eurocentrisms] and heterosexual “values.”) Time is spent critiquing how position “x” misses points raised by position “y.” Meanwhile, the rest of us are left to wait for any ultimate conclusions drawn from these debates among the experts of “isms.” Those engaged in these debates take on the expert roles, while the rest of us fulfill the function of being non-experts.

One way to work around the need for “experts of isms” is to refuse to recognize that roles exist in the first place. For example, there really is no role of a “mother,” only one who engages in the act of mothering — such is the position held by certain feminists. Or that there really is no role of a “worker,” only one who engages in the act of working. Moving our thought away from roles, we are freed to associate with activities that are accessible to all of us, rather than roles which are not. For example, one does not have to be a woman to mother, but it would be difficult to take on the role of mother without being biologically female. Extended to the “expert of isms,” one does not have to have an understanding of dialectical materialism to understand how or why oppression exists in the contemporary workplace. Yet to be an expert (to have taken on the role of a radical intellectual), you must.

One can draw upon his or her own experiences in the workplace to gain this understanding. The question becomes, what knowledges does this working person need to comprehend before he or she can make the links between oppression and the workplace? Does he or she need to have the connections explained or taught to him or her? Who, then, will do this explaining or teaching?

“Of the Radical Intellectual”

A definition for the “radical intellectual” can take one of two routes, depending on whether you perceive his or her activity to be associated to that of taking on a role, or merely as one engaged in the act of radical intellectualizing.

To take on the role of the radical intellectual requires that you perceive intellectualizing as something that not everyone can do (remember how being a mother is not synonymous with mothering?). Given this line of thinking, the role of the radical intellectual is then one of teaching or leading non-intellectuals into becoming radical intellectuals. This follows the thinking that the way to deal with the problem of expert control is to make everyone an expert, much like a conversion process.

To bring about a change in the non-(radical) intellectual the radical intellectual must then concentrate on performing three functions:

1.) mastering the knowledge or information of his or her area of revolutionary specialization;

2.) generating teaching strategies or consciousness-raising techniques;

3.) administering these techniques to the masses.

A person who takes on the role of radical intellectual, and does it well, takes into account these functions and concentrates on linking these functions together. The well-rounded radical intellectual is therefore concerned about linking theory to practice, or “praxis” as many folks have called it.

How then does the radical intellectual engage in praxis? Returning to the example of the working person and his or her understanding of oppression and the workplace, the radical intellectual would initially determine not only how the workplace is oppressive, but also how the working person fails to see these linkages (step one). This mastering of knowledge or information would necessarily generate a critique of the working person’s common-sense understandings of his or her work environment. Techniques to teach the working person how his or her common sense lacks a critical element will be formulated (step two). Ultimately, the well rounded radical intellectual will engage in the praxis of consciousness raising (step three). This activity can take place any number of ways.

Perhaps praxis could embody writing articles that are accessible to the working person. An article is accessible to him or her if he or she acknowledges that the radical intellectual is critiquing his or her common-sense reading of reality and that he or she can learn from this critique. A dys-functional radical intellectual will concentrate only on one function, for example working on mastering theory without intentions to proceed to steps two and three.

Another approach to the radical intellectual is to refuse to claim that there exists a role “radical intellectual,” and that all there is, is radical intellectualizing. This approach assumes that there is never going to be an expert in being radical, which leaves open the opportunity for the person engaged in radical intellectualizing to:

1.) acknowledge hypocrisies;

2.) relinquish power when he or she begins to accumulate it;

3.) engage in a life-long learning process.

Mind you, a person engaged in radical intellectualizing will still engage in the activities of the radical intellectual: Theories will be developed, plans for sharing those theories will be created, and the theories will be finally shared.

By assuming that almost all us from time to time engage in some measure of radical intellectualizing, we popularize being radical. Popularizing radicalization is an issue often quickly deemed unacceptable because of the grip that certain, status quo, (corporate) forces have upon the creation of popular culture. In any event, if a revolution is to occur, then must not the idea of revolution become popular?

Assuming there is a need to have a role for a radical intellectual, to make the idea of revolution popular would it not be necessary for radical intellectuals themselves to become popular. . .much like a Rush Limbaugh has become for the right? Such are the problems of associating ideas or knowledges too closely to expert roles. The relationship between knowledges and persons bearing the knowledges is directly implicated in the distinction between revolution and evolution.

“In (R)evolutionary”

Revolution. Sudden change. An overthrow of the ruling regime. Many people committed to either taking on the role of radical intellectual or simply radical intellectualizing tend to place their activities in reference to some revolutionary event looming in the future. Theories are swapped and debated as to what the outcome of this revolution will be. . .Socialism? Communism? Anarchy? Heaven? I threw heaven in there because these hypothesis (they are after all only hypothesis) about the outcomes of a “revolution” often have a transcendent nature. For example, the capitalist system will be overthrown and a new system will take its place. . .just like that. A sudden transcendence of a similar sort is often the vision for Christ’s second coming when heaven is to come to earth.

Revolutions are eschatological. Eschatology is the study of the “end times.” These end times could be the end of Satan’s rule on earth, the end of patriarchy, the end of whitey’s dominance, or the demise of capitalism. The experts in these revolutionary scenarios become the priests or scientists of the (revolutionary) “end.”

Now I understand that I am exaggerating this analysis of revolution somewhat. I do so, however, to bring out the connection between the role of the revolutionary expert and sudden transcendence. The problem concerns the relationship between revolution and charismatic leaders (experts). From Jesus to Washington, from Napoleon to Gandhi, from Castro to Mao, from Lenin to King, the revolution, whether it really was a revolution or not, was lead by someone — always a man. There tends to be a romantic quality to revolution, a romance that tugs at the egos of brilliant, charismatic men.

Evolution. Evolving. Societies evolve. Communities evolve. Cultures evolve. People evolve. Evolution is not subject to the whims of an expert(s).

Some will argue that even evolution relies on the strengths of leaders. . .after all evolution means “survival of the fittest” a.k.a. social Darwinism. Darwin was a bureaucrat. He professed to be an expert in evolution. . .and for many decades he had’m fooled. Hitler used Darwin’s sense of evolution to convince the German people that the creation of the Aryan race was a part of human evolution. Obviously, this arcane sense of evolution is not what I am implying here.

The evolution I speak of possesses an unknowable quality. Perhaps the evolutionary process is so complex and woven with interdependencies that we will never discover the secrets to evolution. No doubt experts will keep trying. There is a quality to the sense of evolution I am using here that can be of tremendous use for those persons engaged in radical intellectualizing. First, it requires less concern for roles and more of an acknowledgment of relationships. Second, it requires a commitment to making relationships stronger, rather than roles stronger.

Roles are embodied in the functions individuals assume. Relationships are embodied in forms that people take. Now before I digress into an extremely abstracted discussion on the old “function versus form” debate, let me skirt us away from this philosophical quagmire to focus our attention on the distinction between individual roles and collective relationships. I want to assert that working for revolution is very much an individual’s ideal — there is a “revolutionary” role one can assume. I then want to assert that working for evolution is very much a collective ideal — there is no “evolutionary” role for an individual to take.

Individuals (often experts of a given “ism”) do not like to hear this kind of rhetoric. It is either too flaky to take seriously, or it draws our attention away from real concerns: Revolutionary concerns — a worker’s revolution, a woman’s revolution, a poor people’s revolution, a Black revolution. Can you imagine an “evolutionary” organizing a worker’s rebellion?

This debate between revolution versus evolution is really a debate for experts. Real people do not think about (r)evolution. They worry about relationships and very mundane things.

“Action”

To act. Experts act on behalf of others, for others, because others lack the intelligence, the know-how, the commitment to learn expert knowledges. In this context action is oriented to goals or purposes.

For the “bureaucrat” that goal may be to get a “client” his welfare check. The actions the bureaucrat takes are rationally organized, purposeful, efficient, and strategically designed to attain a goal. To take our conversation further along, let me describe a fictional scenario about an unemployed working person named “Tony,” and a person working in a public welfare bureaucracy, “Sylvia.”

Consider the “client.” He is an unemployed welder. He likes to draw, has been to Texas recently to visit his sick mother. His allergies are acting up and his child just started smoking. He has a dog named “Ted.” He is, after all, a human being, a social creature who lives his life in relative obscurity (relative to an expert).

He enters the welfare office. Unemployment has run out. Rent is due. Cupboard bare. . .He approaches the bureaucratic expert (she is an expert in how the welfare system works). She explains to the client his “rights and responsibilities.” Hands him a booklet, a thick booklet. . .it tells the client how to be the client, how to take on the role of the client, how to be a good client.

The bureaucrat lives another life. She likes to read science fiction novels, has been to Texas recently to visit her sick mother. Her allergies are acting up and her child has just started smoking. She has a dog named “Coffee.” She is, after all, a human being, a social creature who lives her life in relative obscurity (relative to an expert).

She sits at her desk. Has already seen eight clients this morning. . .Her rent is due. She administers information which will eventually get this client, this man who likes to draw, a welfare check. . .to pay his rent, to fill his cupboard, to allow him to call his mother in Texas.

The bureaucrat engages in action designed to meet a purpose. . .she is an expert. The unemployed working person becomes an expert in being a client. He has read the booklet and learned from the bureaucrat how the system works.

Shifting frames of reference: Where can the radical intellectual intervene in this relationship? Where does radical intellectualizing fit in? Is the radical intellectual the person who hands the client a booklet, a revolutionary manifesto? Is the person engaged in radical intellectualizing the unemployed working person who lectures the bureaucrat on the evils of the bureaucracy?

“Say, I have a sick mother in Texas too, but I cannot afford to go see her.”

“But Sylvia, you have a job.”

“I can’t get time off, we are understaffed.”

In the bureaucratic relationship that exists between Sylvia and Tony an exchange of comments like this one becomes the start of a new relationship, a communicative relationship. Roles are diminished in importance. Then connections are made.

“They cut our staff and expect us to carry a greater load.”

“And at the same time I get less assistance.”

Personal troubles are related to social structures.

“We need to change the structure.”

Power is gained through knowledge by forming relationships.

The next step is for Tony and Sylvia to do something to change the structure they have just complained about. This activity may warrant the inclusion of radical intellectuals. Remember, that without a commitment to making his or her knowledge accessible the radical intellectual is dys-functional. And yet, this type of activity is the most difficult to do. It may mean organizing a union, creating discussion or study groups, letting opinions be known to the media. These activities are not safe to any degree. The risks involved are great. Support structures must be in place. In other words, there is a lot of work for the radical intellectual to do before Tony and Sylvia are ready for (r)evolution.

♦ ♦ ♦