Intellectuals and the State

[Hogeye]

Once a State has been established, the problem of the ruling group or "caste" is how to maintain their rule.[7] While force is their modus operandi, their basic and long-run problem is ideological. For in order to continue in office, any government (not simply a "democratic" government) must have the support of the majority of its subjects. This support, it must be noted, need not be active enthusiasm; it may well be passive resignation as if to an inevitable law of nature. But support in the sense of acceptance of some sort it must be; else the minority of State rulers would eventually be outweighed by the active resistance of the majority of the public. Since predation must be supported out of the surplus of production, it is necessarily true that the class constituting the State - the full-time bureaucracy (and nobility) - must be a rather small minority in the land, although it may, of course, purchase allies among important groups in the population. Therefore, the chief task of the rulers is always to secure the active or resigned acceptance of the majority of the citizens.[8] ,[9]

Of course, one method of securing support is through the creation of vested economic interests. Therefore, the King alone cannot rule; he must have a sizable group of followers who enjoy the prerequisites of rule, for example, the members of the State apparatus, such as the full-time bureaucracy or the established nobility.[10] But this still secures only a minority of eager supporters, and even the essential purchasing of support by subsidies and other grants of privilege still does not obtain the consent of the majority. For this essential acceptance, the majority must be persuaded by ideology that their government is good, wise and, at least, inevitable, and certainly better than other conceivable alternatives. Promoting this ideology among the people is the vital social task of the "intellectuals." For the masses of men do not create their own ideas, or indeed think through these ideas independently; they follow passively the ideas adopted and disseminated by the body of intellectuals. The intellectuals are, therefore, the "opinion-molders" in society. And since it is precisely a molding of opinion that the State most desperately needs, the basis for age-old alliance between the State and the intellectuals becomes clear.

It is evident that the State needs the intellectuals; it is not so evident why intellectuals need the State. Put simply, we may state that the intellectual's livelihood in the free market is never too secure; for the intellectual must depend on the values and choices of the masses of his fellow men, and it is precisely characteristic of the masses that they are generally uninterested in intellectual matters. The State, on the other hand, is willing to offer the intellectuals a secure and permanent berth in the State apparatus; and thus a secure income and the panoply of prestige. For the intellectuals will be handsomely rewarded for the important function they perform for the State rulers, of which group they now become a part.[11]

The alliance between the State and the intellectuals was symbolized in the eager desire of professors at the University of Berlin in the nineteenth century to form the "intellectual bodyguard of the House of Hohenzollern." In the present day, let us note the revealing comment of an eminent Marxist scholar concerning Professor Wittfogel's critical study of ancient Oriental despotism: "The civilization which Professor Wittfogel is so bitterly attacking was one which could make poets and scholars into officials."[12] Of innumerable examples, we may cite the recent development of the "science" of strategy, in the service of the government's main violence-wielding arm, the military.[13] A venerable institution, furthermore, is the official or "court" historian, dedicated to purveying the rulers' views of their own and their predecessors' actions.[14]

Many and varied have been the arguments by which the State and its intellectuals have induced their subjects to support their rule. Basically, the strands of argument may be summed up as follows: (a) the State rulers are great and wise men (they "rule by divine right," they are the "aristocracy" of men, they are the "scientific experts"), much greater and wiser than the good but rather simple subjects, and (b) rule by the extent government is inevitable, absolutely necessary, and far better, than the indescribable evils that would ensue upon its downfall. The union of Church and State was one of the oldest and most successful of these ideological devices. The ruler was either anointed by God or, in the case of the absolute rule of many Oriental despotisms, was himself God; hence, any resistance to his rule would be blasphemy. The States' priestcraft performed the basic intellectual function of obtaining popular support and even worship for the rulers.[15] - Murray Rothbard, Anatomy of the State.

Does everyone agree that States try to buy off the intellectual elite, to serve as "court intellectuals," justifying their rule? That the old State-Church alliance has been updated to a State-ScientificExpert alliance?

[Doug]

DOUG
Look at how the thought police work for Bush:

=============
Teacher Jay Bennish ... has been sent on leave for remarks he made about US President George W. Bush during class, that some people compare Bush to Adolf Hitler.

Cherry Creek School District administrators were investigating whether geography teacher Jay Bennish violated a policy requiring balancing viewpoints in the Overland school classroom, district spokeswoman Tustin Amole said.

Amole said Bennish was placed on administrative leave to avoid further disruption at the school in the east Denver suburb.

[snipped]

Sophomore Sean Allen recorded about 20 minutes of Bennish's class during a Feb. 1 discussion about Bush's State of the Union speech and gave the recording to his father, who complained to the principal, Amole said.

"After listening to the tape, it's evident the comments in the class were inappropriate. There were not adequate opportunities for opposing points of view," she said.
[snip]

No action has been taken against Bennish, Amole said.[snip]

Amole said Bennish told school officials he had received threats as news of the allegations spread, but she did not speculate on what the threats were and who made them.
===============
DOUG
You can read the rest here:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/teache ... 29034.html

I heard some of the statements on TV this morning, and let me tell you, this guy was NOT raving about how Bush was like Hitler. He was just raising questions and trying to get the students to think. In fact, the student who complained, the same one who did the recording of the lecture, asked questions and was called upon by the teacher. The student clearly disagreed with the teacher, and the teacher praised the student for thinking about the issue in a different way.

The teacher was just asking students to consider some points of comparison between what Hitler did and some things that Bush has done. I do similar "controversial" things in my classes all the time. An administrator told me today that teachers at community colleges have fewer rights than public school teachers. Are my days numbered?

[Hogeye]

One would think that, in general, college teachers are less subject to administrative restrictions on what they teach, so long as it pertains to the subject matter. For one thing, in higher education there is no compulsory attendence, nor required classes which run counter to some parents and students beliefs. And higher ed's mission is somewhat different - more conducive to rational inquiry rather than rote drilling of basics and conditioning students to be good subjects and proles. Also, there's tenure for profs, which in theory provides some protection.

On the other hand, look what happened to this non-politically-correct prof.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

The article seems to have a very hazy definition of intellectuals. It also seems to be using purely totalitarian examples. If its point is that education can be perverted to power's cause, then the need for a well-educated populace (as Jefferson called for) is easily seen - if we all have the knowledge of how things work, then spin and propaganda will not work. As to this specific state (U.S.A., Bush administration) trying to buy off intellectuals, the evidence seems to be the opposite - this state is trying to suppress them.

Community College instructors are "neither fish nor fowl nor good red meat" as far as job security is concerned. They don't get the protection of tenure that established university professors get (& the Bennish situation shows exactly why tenure came into being) nor do they have the protection of scarcity - shortage of high school (especially math and science) teachers - especially high school teachers in a district with a decent union. In fact, the "market forces" of student approval, heaven help them, is the tide upon which community college instructors ride.

[Hogeye]

If its point is that education can be perverted to power's cause...

No, the point is about intellectuals, not education. The point is that rulers tend to try to "buy off" the intellectual elite, the opinion molders of society, for the same reason that they try to "buy off" the mass media - to consolidate their rule.

As to this specific state (U.S.A., Bush administration) trying to buy off intellectuals, the evidence seems to be the opposite - this state is trying to suppress them.

Bush is the current official head of state, but he is not the State. The State is an organization. Unlike a human, it has no brain. It can have conflicting factions running different parts and agencies of State. So the fact that the US State is inconsistent in its policies or funding of intellectual elites is not surprising. Remember, this is the same State that subsidized both tobacco farmers and anti-smoking campaigns.

If you want to gauge the degree of government buying off intellectual elites, then look at how much such elites' income comes from government, i.e. NSF grants, govt paychecks, and so on, compared with how much of their income comes from voluntary (private) sources. Do you know what percentage of mathematics PHDs nationwide are hired by the NSA?

[Doug]

Bush is the current official head of state, but he is not the State.

DOUG
OK, there are differences between Bush and the State.

The State is an organization. Unlike a human, it has no brain.

DOUG
Hey, I thought you said it wasn't like Bush!

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Hey Doug - I didn't write that, Hogeye did.

Hogeye, hiring somebody for a job (teaching or research) is not the same thing as "buying them off" - and if you aren't talking about education - the professors and researchers you've mentioned more than once - then I need a more concise definition of intellectuals, and some examples of what you mean by "buying them off".

[Doug]

Hey Doug - I didn't write that, Hogeye did.

DOUG
OK, fixed it.

[Hogeye]

People tend to know which side their bread is buttered on. There is a reason that e.g. state-funded college profs tend to be more statist than the general population, why Fayetteville (with its university) votes for virtually all taxes and property-rights violations, while Springdale doesn't, and so on. When people perceive a benefit from government largesse, they tend to support the State.

For the definition, I'll go with Merriam-Webster. An intellectual is someone who is engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect.

In earlier ages, the intellectuals were the priests; nowadays, the intellectuals are the scientists, PHDs, and such. The function of these "court intellectuals" (referring to a king's court, Sav, not a court of law) is to provide an ideological justification for the State. In the long run, a State cannot survive soley by brute force - it needs to con the subjects into believing that it is good, just, or at least inevitable and unavoidable. The classic germinal essay on this is Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, by Étienne de la Boétie (1548). Billy Bob sez check it out.