| Number 202 | April 25, 2003 |
|
Hey, faithful readers, it’s WEEK 2 of the April 2003 ** NYGAARD NOTES PLEDGE DRIVE! ** Have you donated yet? If not, Hear Ye, Hear Ye: You can now donate to Nygaard Notes online. All you need is a credit card. Just click here, and then on the “Donate Online” box. Click and follow instructions. Of course, you could also pick up an envelope right now and address it to: Nygaard Notes (Before you stamp and mail it, remember to put a check inside. See last week’s issue for ideas on what the amount should be.) For a little encouragement to those who don’t yet fully understand the importance of supporting projects like this one, see this week’s story #2. This Week:
|
|
Greetings, This week, for the first time in months, there is no material in the Notes about Iraq. It’s not by any means that I think the story is “over.” I just thought it was time to take a break. I have given many ideas for great sources of ongoing news and analysis on that particular aspect of current events, so I hope readers are taking advantage of those tips. What I do offer this week is a short piece about one part of the attack on social welfare that is happening at the state level in Minnesota, with a lesson drawn about how ideology is passed on through the media. I don’t call it “propaganda” this week, but I could. It’s not intentional, it’s not a conspiracy. But it’s understandable and it’s predictable, which means we can defend ourselves against it once we know how to spot it. I hope this article helps. The longest piece this week is the one on supporting Public Intellectuals, which I capitalize simply because I like it that way. (It makes it seem like a Big Idea, doesn’t it?) It’s may seem a bit self-serving, and it is, since it ends up encouraging you to support Nygaard Notes. But it’s not entirely self-serving; there’s a larger point there, so I encourage you to read it even if you would never in your wildest dreams contribute money to Nygaard Notes. Until next week, Nygaard |
|
The latest irrational and punitive attack on vulnerable people in Minnesota is a bill that has been introduced in the state House of Representatives by Marty Seifert, a Republican from the southwestern town of Marshall. The bill would cut from three to two the number of meals that are served to inmates in state prisons on weekends and holidays. Supposedly it’s being proposed for budget reasons, but it would only save $248,000 in a state budget of $23 billion, so that’s not the real reason. Here’s what the local paper the Star Trib reported:
|
|
Since it’s Nygaard Notes Pledge Drive time, I have been thinking about why anybody should support Nygaard Notes with their hard-earned dollars. I realized it had a lot to do with my conception of this project as a small part of a large movement for social change. There’s a big need for social change action right now. There’s also a big need for clear thinking to guide that action. That’s what this essay is about. A few weeks ago I listed the names of some people I think are good sources for “Iraq Context and Analysis.” The list included people like
Each of these people has a different type of contribution that they make, but I think each of them could be described, in part, as a “Public Intellectual.” What is a “Public Intellectual?” Well, they come in all shapes and sizes, and arise from different places, but they all have a similar social function. They are the people who have the time and inclination to do the thinking necessary to help the rest of us sort out and try to make sense of the flood of information to which we are subjected every day of our lives. As any activist knows, a social change movement needs a clear vision, it needs a coherent strategy, and it needs effective tactics. Popular educators, who are all about social change, speak of a cycle of “action, reflection, action.” Simply put, it is understood that each attempt we make at changing the world (Action) DOES change the world. This, in turn, creates a new reality, which means that we would do well to consider the new reality we have created (Reflection) before we decide on what to do next (Action). Intellectuals can provide some of the analytical skills to help with these processes. In short, Public Intellectuals use their intellectual abilities to help make social change. Public and Private Intellectuals U.S. culture has lots of “non-public” intellectuals. Corporations employ millions of people to think about how to make more money for their companies. Maybe we could call these people “private” intellectuals. Schools and colleges have lots of scholars on their payrolls. They sit around reading, thinking, doing research, and talking. If they talk only to students or other professionals in their fields, then they are simply scholars and teachers. That’s important, but it doesn’t make them Public Intellectuals. Maybe they are sort of “Semi-Public” Intellectuals. What distinguishes a Public Intellectual from any other person who spends a good deal of their time thinking and talking is that a Public Intellectual consciously attempts to make herself useful to the public at large. You will find a Public Intellectual out in the world speaking, writing books and articles, attending political meetings and conferences, and in many ways attempting to make her or his knowledge and skills available to people who are doing the hard work of organizing people to change the world. Public Intellectuals are generalists, big picture thinkers, context-providers. While they may have a specific area of expertise, they must also have the broad general knowledge necessary to understand the social importance of the details they know. Perhaps the biggest thing that Public Intellectuals have that distinguishes them from the general population—and enables them to do what they do—is that their lives are arranged to allow them TIME. Time to think, time to consider the Big Picture, time to reflect on the context for all of the information that shapes our understanding of “how the world works.” Does the U.S. culture support Public Intellectuals? Yes and no. Some people can kind of “make it” as individuals, since they are so well-known that they get paid to speak, or they can sell enough of their own books that it allows them to live. But they didn’t start out able to do it on their own. Somebody had to support them. Some scholars make their living by teaching, and do their social intellectual work “on the side.” Some people are employed by “think tanks,” which raise funds and use the funds to actually pay people to be Public Intellectuals. A lot of the people you see on the TV political talk shows or read in the editorial pages fall into this category. Naturally, many of these people tend to use their abilities to defend the system we have, since the “winners” in this system—that is, the wealthy and powerful—are more likely to support intellectuals who will defend this system than those who are more critical. They’d be sort of crazy not to. Please note that all this talk about “intellectuals” is not some sort of pie-in-the-sky thing that is only of interest to political fanatics. The ability of the so-called “right wing” to fund all sorts of think tanks and Public Intellectuals goes a long way to explain their success in recent years in the U.S. This army of Individualistic and Competitive (IC) intellectuals has helped their political allies to develop and use strategies that have enabled them to consolidate their political power at all levels. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, they also have used their well-funded prominence to push the IC ideology into the forefront of political discourse at the turn of the century. It’s not an accident that the political “center” in this country has shifted so far to the “right.” The IC crowd has been scheming and planning this movement for many years, and using their money to carry out their schemes and plans. Those of us who have a different set of hopes for our nation and our world have to counter this power with a power of our own. We have to support Public Intellectuals who have a more Social and Cooperative set of values so, when a crisis occurs, they will be able to provide the memory, the context, and the perspective that can help us to place the “news” that we are given about our world in a philosophical and ideological context that gives it meaning in light of our values. What This Has to Do With Nygaard Notes While anyone can be a Public Intellectual, only some of us have the desire and the inclination to spend a lot of time using our brains in this way. Thinking is real work—it isn’t magic—and it takes time to do it. I love doing it, which is why I produce Nygaard Notes. Not only do I consider myself a Public Intellectual; I think of myself as a Working Class Public Intellectual. By that I mean that I write from the point of view of those of us whose only hope for a better life comes from hard work. People of wealth and power can pretty much take care of themselves, individually. While some working class and poor people may “make it” to that level someday through good luck or entrepreneurial skill, most of us won’t. To improve our lot we will have to rely on united action, social solidarity, and love. Nygaard Notes is intended to contribute to the intellectual work that is essential to a successful social change movement. It’s only a small part but, I think, an important one. If you appreciate my work as a Working Class Public Intellectual, and understand the importance of this kind of work, then perhaps you will make a contribution in support of the project. |
|
Here is a story of two small newspaper articles, published two days apart, that provide a tiny illustration of a very important pattern and function of the daily media, which is the transmitting and reinforcing of certain kinds of ideology. I’ll make it clear seven paragraphs from now. In the Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!) of March 12 ran an article “Rush-hour Metro Bus Fares May Go Up.” In that article we read not only that the Metropolitan Council, which runs the bus system, will raise fares, but that “The bus system also would reduce service, shift capital funds to operating accounts and cut administrative overhead in anticipation of Gov. Tim Pawlenty's plan to cut transit spending during the next two years...” (The reason for all of this, as is well-known, is that the Governor of Minnesota is determined to stick to his pledge of “No New Taxes,” which I like to call the “Pawlenty-of-Nothin’ Plan.”) As you might expect, higher fares mean fewer people taking the bus. Natalio Diaz, the Metropolitan Council's transportation planner, was quoted as saying that “higher fares alone are expected to translate into 1 million fewer rides a year.” Now, skip ahead four days to the Star Trib of March 16th. On that day the headline (on page 8 of the Metro section) read: “Pollution Alert Posted for Twin Cities.” The alert was posted for the entire weekend, and was “being caused by an abundance of fine particles in the air—from vehicle exhaust, power plants, fireplaces and other fuel-burning sources,” according to the Star Trib. The relationship between these two stories may seem obvious when I present them back-to-back. However, the connection is not as easy to make when the stories appear days apart, which significantly reduces their potential political impact. The government group that issues air pollution alerts in Minnesota is the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, so I went over to their website to look around. There I found their suggestions for “a number of actions” that can be taken “as an individual” to reduce air pollution in our community. First on the list? “Bike, bus, walk or carpool.” How realistic those options are, of course, has to do with public policy decisions, such as, for example, public funding for transit. Meanwhile, back in the March 16th newspaper report on air pollution, we were told that the “most vulnerable are those with heart and lung disease, including asthma, and those over 50,” and then we were given some specific ideas for how to reduce one’s risk. “If you're accustomed to a 3-mile walk, maybe take half of that,” said a PCA spokesperson. Could one also work to reduce one’s risk by contacting one’s elected officials and encouraging them to oppose the governor’s plan to reduce pollution-reducing transit options? I think so, but the newspaper report, for some reason, failed to suggest this sort of action to its readers. Where’s the Ideology? Can you see the ideology and how it is reinforced? The ideology is that pollution is a personal problem, the best response to which is personal (reduce your walks, stay indoors, whatever.) Such ideology is routinely and unconsciously reinforced by emphasizing the personal aspects of a given problem and omitting or downplaying the public, social dimensions of the problem. This ideology of personal responsibility is, not coincidentally, the very ideology embraced by the Individualist and Competitive (a.k.a. “conservative”) members of society as they work to “free” themselves from taxation, regulation, liability lawsuits, or any other limits on their ability to exercise their power and increase their wealth. After all, if every one of our problems can be remedied by nothing more than making better “personal choices,” then why do we need “government” at all? Why would reporters in the mass media have an interest in promoting the IC ideology? Am I suggesting that there is some sort of gigantic conspiracy, perhaps a “conservative media” that is the opposite of the “liberal media” we hear so much about? Nothing of the sort. Here’s what I am suggesting: The nature of the daily press is such that it allows very little time for reporters, editors, and producers to pause and reflect. Their deadlines are very short. So, in order to make sense of the enormous jumble of facts that come at them, they take shortcuts. The shortcuts they take are made individually but, overall, they will tend to be conservative ones, for a number of reasons. I’ll only mention a couple aspects of the main problem here: Imagine that a reporter wants to include an explanation or interpretation that seems a little “radical” or unconventional—for example, perhaps she wants to suggest to readers that they respond both personally AND socially to the problem of air pollution. There’s little room in the daily press for that sort of thing, even in the serious newspapers; there are too many stories to cover in too little space. And TV is hopeless in this respect; they don’t even try to provide context. In addition, many editors would consider the introduction of such ideas to be an inappropriate injection of ideology on the part of the reporter. (They would call it “editorializing.”) The ideology that is routinely present, as I suggest above, they will tend not to notice. And they will tend not to notice it precisely because it does not appear to them as “radical” or unconventional, which brings this argument full circle. Few people see the ideology, fewer still question it. The ironic thing is, people could use the time they save by cutting a mile-and-a-half off of their daily walks to contact their elected officials. Repeatedly. |