« REPORTING ON THE REPORTERS • Main • »

April 02, 2003

THE MORAL OBLIGATION TO BE INTELLIGENT

Nicholas De Genova, the Columbia professor of Anthropology who called for the deaths of American soldiers, is already being presented by his defenders as a victim of Mc'Carthyite assaults on the First amendment and academic freedom. Before we hear more sanctimony from the Columbia administration, there is one question in l'affaire De Genova that has not been addressed: is it the responsiblity of the university to have minimal standards of intelligence in hiring faculty? Once upon a time Lionel Trilling,the defining intellectual voice of Columbia for a generation, spoke of teachers, scholars and intellectuals' "moral obligation to be intelligent". This was the ideal towards which his students struggled, as Trilling insisted not only on critical intelligence, but clarity of expression. This standard was rigorously applied, as those of us who were his students recall. Let us, for the moment, put aside questions of whether Nicholas De Genova was exercising his first amendment rights when he called for the killing of his fellow citizens; let us forego discussing the relationship between academic freedom and academic responsibility. Instead, let us look at whether Prof. De Genova possesses the minimal level of intelligence necessary to be a Professor in the Dept of Anthropology, one that once housed the likes of Ruth Benedict, Franz Boas and Margaret Mead.
The first piece of evidence is the following letter, written by Prof. De Genova to explain his comments at the teach-in.

To the Editor:
Spectator, now for the second time in less than a year, has succeeded to quote me in a remarkably decontextualized and inflammatory manner. In Margaret Hunt Gram's report on the faculty teach-in against the war in Iraq (March 27, 2003), I am quoted as wishing for a million Mogadishus but with no indication whatsoever of the perspective that framed that remark. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that your Staff Editorial in the same issue, denouncing the teach-in for "dogmatism," situates me in particular as the premier example of an academic "launching tirades against anything and everything American."
In my brief presentation, I outlined a long history of U.S. invasions, wars of conquest, military occupations, and colonization in order to establish that imperialism and white supremacy have been constitutive of U.S. nation-state formation and U.S. nationalism. In that context, I stressed the necessity of repudiating all forms of U.S. patriotism. I also emphasized that the disproportionate majority of U.S. troops come from racially subordinated and working-class backgrounds and are in the military largely as a consequence of a treacherous lack of prospects for a decent life. Nonetheless, I emphasized that U.S. troops are indeed confronted with a choice--to perpetrate this war against the Iraqi people or to refuse to fight and contribute toward the defeat of the U.S. war machine.
I also affirmed that Iraqi liberation can only be effected by the Iraqi people themselves, both by resisting and defeating the U.S. invasion as well as overthrowing a regime whose brutality was long sustained by none other than the U.S. Such an anti-colonial struggle for self-determination might involve a million Mogadishus now but would ultimately have to become something more like another Vietnam. Vietnam was a stunning defeat for U.S. imperialism; as such, it was also a victory for the cause of human self-determination.
Is this a tirade against "anything and everything American"? Far from it. First, I hasten to remind you that "American" refers to all of the Americas, not merely to the United States, as U.S. imperial chauvinism would have it. More importantly, my rejection of U.S. nationalism is an appeal to liberate our own political imaginations such that we might usher in a radically different world in which we will not remain the prisoners of U.S. global domination.
---Nicholas De Genova

Notice the cant words and phrases that substitute for thought ("decontextualized", "situates me", "constitutive of") the ungrammatical assertions ("Spectator...has succeeded to quote me...") the meaningless word salad ("...largely as a consequence of the treacherous lack of prospects for a decent life.") And then the cliches straight from Uncle Joe Stalin's handbook for American Communists: "..long history of U.S. invasions, wars of conquest...", blah, blah, blah, "...imperialism, white supremacy...anti-colonial struggle for self-determination", blah, blah, blah. And finally, notice the utter absence of logical thought; in his exculpatory letter Prof. De Genova adds to his call for a million Mogadishus by urging U.S. troops to "...refuse to fight and contribute toward the defeat of the U.S. war machine.." He then helpfully explains that although this "might involve a million Mogadishus..it would ultimately have to come to another Vietnam. Vietnam was a stunning defeat for U.S. imperialism; as such, it was also a victory for the cause of self determination." Having uttered these clarifications De Genova avers that this is not a tirade against everything American because "I hasten to remind you that "American" refers to all of the Americas, not merely to the United States, as U.S. imperial chauvinism would have it." Thank you for "hastening" to remind us, Professor! As anti-matter is related to matter, so are De Genova's ravings related to thought.This is mindlessness beyond ignorance. It is undigested ideology, incoherently regurgitated and making as much sense as the rantings of a hospitalized paranoiac. Learning that such a person had obtained a Ph.D in anthropology from the University of Chicago, I was curious to find out what kind of research interests led to the achievement of that intellectual honor. Here is Professor De Genova's own description of his work.:

"The central concerns of my research and teaching include: labor and class formation, racialization, the production of urban space, nationalism, the politics of citizenship, and transnational social processes, especially migration. My ethnographic research explores the social productions of racialized and spatialized difference in the experiences of transnational Mexican migrant workers within the space of the U.S. nation-state. More specifically, I examine transnational urban conjunctural spaces that link the U.S. and Latin America as a standpoint of critique from which to interrogate U.S. nationalism, political economy, racialized citizenship, and immigration law. This work contributes to a reconceptualization of Latin American, Latino, and "American" (U.S.) Studies. Likewise, I am interested in the methodological problems of ethnographic research practice and the limits of anthropological disciplinary forms of knowledge and modes of representation."
Note once again the cant, ideological, ungrammatical and meaningless phrases: "racialized and spatialized", "reconceptualization" and my personal favorite "transnational urban conjunctural spaces".
Can anyone reading De Genova's statements and letters seriously argue that his is a scholarly mind at work, striving for knowledge? Can anyone seriously argue that his is a mind striving towards coherence and clarity of expression? So my question for Columbia is this: do you, out of a sense of responsibility for your students, maintain a minimal standard for intelligence in your faculty? How widespread amongst your faculty is such mindlessness? And what happened to the moral obligation to be intelligent? When a great university like Columbia becomes a cesspool of hatred towards America and Israel, it is not surprising to find its highest intellectual ideals have been shattered.

Posted at 12:05 PM by

Comments

I can hardly believe it. His "clarification" made him appear far worse than he did after the initial incident!

A "scholarly mind"? Hardly. The sentiments he's uttered would be sufficient to indict the Angel Gabriel. It is incomprehensible that an adult human being could be so deeply defective, both of intellect and character, as to say what he's said. He's a disgrace to his dubious trade, to his insufficiently critical employer, and to the nation he's abused.

Posted by: Francis W. Porretto on April 2, 2003 05:35 PM

One of the unexpected benefits of the confrontation with Iraq is what it has revealed about our elite universities. Hopefully the spreading awareness will lead those who pay upwards of $30,000 tuition to demand change.

Posted by: Stephen Rittenberg on April 2, 2003 06:04 PM

Very fortunately, our "elite" universities do not control access to top jobs to anywhere near the extent they do in many countries (such as France). We definitely need to insure that this continues to be the case--indeed, those who are still impressed with an "Ivy League degree" need to ask themselves why.

Posted by: David Foster on April 2, 2003 10:48 PM

I believe it is a mistake to think that the barely intelligible mind slop found in ("constitutive of") de Genova's drivel marks him as a moron. He is, in my experience with constructivist and postmodernist social "science" (ethnomethodology, critical ethnography), well trained in the "rhetorical moves" that pass for thinking--among his crowd of Neimann Marxists.

He is more to be pitied than censured. Still, I believe that a good kicking down the street topped off by a refreshing dunk in hot tar would be censure enough.

Posted by: Martin Kozloff on April 2, 2003 10:56 PM

Right to free speech, yes. Right to wish the fleas of ten thousand camels find permanent accommodations within Prof. De Genova's genitalia, hell yes.

Posted by: Glenn Menein on April 3, 2003 11:23 PM

I have been an English teacher for the past ten years, with a Master's plus 45 hours in Rhetoric and Composition, and I find Rittenberg's attempts to critique DeGenova's rhetoric on the basis of grammar and language foundless. I find it ironic that Rittenberg attempts to attack DeGenova's use of language yet refuses to use his own intellect to attempt to comprehend what he views as a "meaningless word salad." There is nothing ungrammatical about the phrases that Rittenberg identifies as ungrammatical: "racialized and spatialized," "reconceptualization," and the like. It's the last resort of the ideologically impotent - to attempt to call someone's "intelligence" into question based on some elitist idea of a language "standard" rather than truly grappling with the ideas inherent in the speech. In addition, the posts that follow are reminiscent of the adolescence I encounter on a daily basis in my encounters with the eighth graders I teach. Rather than being clever, or intelligent, or reflective, they are reactionary and juvenile. Can anyone reading these posts assume that the respondents are striving to widen their own capacities to engage in reflective dialogue about the ideas contained in the language rather than the pathetic fantasies about inflicting physical harm on someone for something said? This too is reminiscent of eighth grade behavior, when an adolescent is ready to "throw down" based on "he say/she say." For those of you ready to respnd to me with unintelligent threats of physical harm, don't bother. Let me also apologize to you in advance for not being a member of academia, so you cannot attack me on that basis, either. I am an academic dropout as a result of my own disgust with Ivory Tower politics, but I doubt that any of you would agree with my interpretation of what's wrong with academia.

Posted by: Kristine L. Sieloff on April 4, 2003 09:44 AM

Kristine

I don't believe that anybody is very interested in "striving to widen their own capacities to engage in reflective dialogue about the ideas contained in the language."

Even a dog knows the difference between being tripped over and being kicked. The reflection in this case is how to mix payback with respect for the right of free speech.

Posted by: Warthog on April 4, 2003 02:58 PM

Miss Sieloff,

In my fifty-plus years, I have found it to be an invariant of the human condition that, when a man has something to say that's worth saying, he will say it clearly. When he wants to confuse his audience but leave it with an impression of his superior erudition, he'll resort to the sort of obfuscations Mr. De Genova has used... and that you have endorsed, and used yourself.

Your academic credentials have absolutely no bearing on the subject at hand. Why did you lead off your diatribe with them? I doubt they impress Dr. Rittenberg. If we go by current evidence, he's a far better communicator and analyst of communication than you, which calls into question just whether the education you've so proudly cited was worth its cost. To me it seems that it might have done actual harm to your mind.

One of the bedrock principles of communication is that the import of any message inheres in how the listener interprets it. No matter how it was meant by the speaker, the listener is the ultimate interpreter -- which is why a congeries of weakly associated and often meaningless cant words and phrases such as Mr. De Genova's is all too obviously not an attempt to communicate. It's just squid's ink, behind which our errant "scholar" hopes to conceal his beliefs and intentions -- quite understandable, given the extreme evil of the sentiments he'd expressed so clearly in his notorious public appearance. It's a recurring pattern among academic Marxists.

In short: spare us your supercilious cant. The intellectual power available at Horsefeathers could give you cards and spades, and still laugh you away.

Sincerely,
Francis W. Porretto

Posted by: Francis W. Porretto on April 4, 2003 03:43 PM

Kristine...It's quite possible to have a sentence, or a paragraph, which is grammatically correct but semantically meaningless. And it's also possible to write something that indeed transmits meaning, but does so in a way which is much more difficult to understand than it need be.

What is in fact elitist, in my view, is to write in a style which is the verbal equivalent of a "keep out" sign -- ie, to use phraseology which discourages non-"experts" in a particular field from reading it and commenting upon it. To criticize such as style is not elitist -- it is counter-elitist.

Posted by: David Foster on April 4, 2003 06:37 PM

Ooh, I'm quaking in the face of your "intellectual power" and the wisdom of your own stated credentials: your "fifty plus years." Simply stated enough for you? My mind is clear, thank you; I escaped academia well before it did too much damage. By the way, you're using the same type of elitist-speak you're accusing me of using. In my initial post, I was simply pointing out that something was being labeled "ungrammatical" that technically wasn't; "semantically meaningless," perhaps, yes, and I am so glad, we've cleared that up!

Posted by: Kris Sieloff on April 5, 2003 09:47 AM

The public will decide for itself, Miss Sieloff. I have no doubt about the outcome. No doubt Mr. De Genova will evaluate it as "an outgrowth of false consciousness brought on by the inexorable contradictions of racialized national identity-imposition and late capitalist economics." It appears you've chosen your preferred side. May you be very happy with it.

Posted by: Francis W. Porretto on April 5, 2003 10:00 AM

and while we're at it, let's all read orwell's "politics and the english language"
prof de genova proves one of orwell's points pretty conclusively: that the purpose of most political language is to defend the indefensible and to excuse the inexcusable.

Posted by: akaky on April 5, 2003 02:10 PM

Kris - well said. Though no doubt the other posters will just term your rational and concise argument "cant", as that's what these morons do (and at great length) because their own opinions are based on nothing more than blinkered thinly-veiled prejudice and self-importance. Take heart. The approbation of these people would be an insult to any truly intelligent person. Remember the Aryan kids our pal Adolf liked to pat on the head?...

Posted by: Rosa on April 11, 2003 02:55 PM

Kriss, it may not be ungramatical, it is however un american

Posted by: scott briese on April 14, 2003 04:19 PM

So quiet lately. More comment please.

Posted by: postal code on July 24, 2003 09:01 AM

Hello. I just wanted to give a quick greeting and tell you I enjoyed reading your material.

Posted by: Atkins Diet on November 10, 2003 02:18 AM

HI, Wow.. this is a very informative website!
I enjoy your site very much! Keep up the good work!

Atkins Diet plan is the most poppular low carb diet today. Lose weight while you sleep!

Posted by: Atkins Diet Plan on December 10, 2003 03:00 PM

I search for forum like this long time.You website is very good!I will come next time !

Posted by: ultimate hgh on December 22, 2003 04:25 AM

Thank you very much,I like this website! Do it good.

Posted by: hgh human growth on December 23, 2003 02:07 AM

just wanted to give a greeting and tell you I like your website very much.HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Posted by: buy hgh on December 28, 2003 10:22 AM