Radical Thought and Academia--A Bit of a Ramble

American Studies Blog Post #2:

After class today I began thinking about radical thought within Academia, and the broader historical trends that have taken place within American political discourse. A question popped into my mind: How does the increased formalization and legitimization of critical and radical thought within academia relate to, if at all, the deradicalization of American political discourse and culture and the pacification of students?

On the one hand, since the “Power Movements” many disciplines have been legitimized and secured—after decades of fighting—that welcome critical, oppositional and radical analyses of society. Ethnic studies, American studies, women’s studies, queer studies, cultural studies and probably a host of others build off of canonical texts that articulate endemic, intractable, fundamental problems with society, and often pose revolutionary or liberatory ways of moving forward. Capitalism, patriarchy, racism, white supremacy, heteronormativity, and other dominant ideological and structural forces are interrogated, unpacked, and intellectually dismantled. Perverse contradictions, inequalities and hierarchies are de-naturalized and wrestled with in all of these disciplines.

Yet that being said, I cannot help but notice that the growing legitimization and normalization of radical thought within academia has also taken place alongside two other problematic (according to my own subjective values) trends: the conservatization of American mainstream political culture and discourse, and the rise of a less active and less critical generation of students (of which I am a part). Within our country capitalism and unfettered markets seem less questioned and more immutable than ever (this is changing in slight ways as evidenced by Obama’s election and mild economic interventionism). Racial inequality and discrimination, though less blatant and no longer legal, still characterize American society. And yet, few imaginative alternatives to the current social and economic order have any serious currency within American political discourse. Only mild tinkering with the market economy is considered, and bolstering public goods and services will be a battle for the Obama administration. Inequality and poverty seem to be relatively low-profile political issues in America, and racial inequality (in terms of outcomes and substantive opportunity) is practically taboo to speak about.

As academia has become incredibly diverse ideologically, it seems American political discourse has narrowed and become more conservative. Are these trends related? On the one hand, it seems that academia has become a haven of sorts for radical thought during an era in which conservatism and reformism have reigned. It makes sense that an institution with at least a degree of autonomy (from business and government) has become the repository for radical thinking even when such thinking holds no wider political viability. That being said, I wonder if the legitimization of radical thinking in academia has in any way hindered the Left’s growth since the Reagan Revolution. For one, radical thought in academia often seems to be depoliticized and decontextualized (crazy ideas from the past that are severed from the actual people and struggles that precipitated such thinking). Also, as academia has become the main repository for radical thinking and radical intellectuals, it seems that a geographical gulf has formed between communities that disproportionately bear the brunt of structures of domination (be they social or economic) and ideas from the Leftist tradition. More privileged members of society attending four-year institutions are exposed to revolutionary ways of thinking, yet such thinking may often be merely consumed like candy--taken as ideas that are to be wrestled with for the sake of one’s own intellectual development, not because they are to influence praxis.

In this way, I wonder if those most capable of revolutionizing society (those with the lived experiences that inspire action) are most distanced from the ideas that could be empowering, and those least capable of revolutionizing society (those with the greatest stake, materially speaking, in the status quo) are exposed to radical thought, yet often consume it as part of an intellectual feast en-route to a comfortable, professional existence.

These are very rough ideas, though I am simply entertaining the thought that the legitimization of radical thought within academia, and the fact that academia has become somewhat of a haven for radical thinking during a conservative era, may have had some serious ramifications: namely, the fact that privileged people have complete access to critical theory and the theoretical products of the Leftist tradition, while working class and underprivileged people are completely distanced from these narratives and traditions—both spatially and otherwise. Moreover, I wonder whether the access disparities have hampered the Left’s reemergence.