Who are academics, activists, and the media talking to?

August 2nd, 2008 by yaman | Posted in Comment |

Too often academic proposals and editorials are produced which presume to offer ‘advice’ to administrators and policy-makers and other functionaries of the state. And often in this process there is a certain sympathy towards the governor in terms of ‘difficulties’ of his ‘job.’ There is a fixation running throughout the media and academia on what governments can or cannot do; what they are or are not “capable” of doing; and further, how they can do them in the best way possible.

That is the way I can best understand what editorials which take no meaningful positions whatsoever, but express frustration at “incompetence,” are doing, as if one should appreciate what I can only describe as “finesse” in management and governance without even considering what kind of actions and decisions are being undertaken, or what their assumptions and consequences are, in the first place. Nowhere has this been more clear than in press ambiguity on the occupation of Iraq, where the position has not been to end the occupation, but to run it more intelligently.

I remember days in middle school, high school, and even some occasions in college where one day’s discussion might survey various “systems” and then try to discuss their “benefits” and “drawbacks.” What counted as “systems” were usually ideas extremely oversimplified into neat categories like “capitalism,” “communism,” “socialism,” “democracy,” “republicanism,” etcetera. Each of these always had a real world reference which could be used as an example, and it happily happened that the “best” always ended up being the one representing “us,” and the worst, “the enemy.” Inevitably the discussion always turned to what “worked” and what “didn’t”–all past tense, because apparently this was a scientific conclusion following a series of real-world tests and experiments.

And as far as merits and shortcomings were concerned, these usually had things to do with epic managerial questions like: how do we (wait a minute, who?) give people the incentive to work (…for whom?)? Within the course of a one hour discussion, we could very safely conclude that some ideas “just don’t work ‘in practice’,” and by now we’d shifted to a progressive tense, because we could conclude that because they didn’t “work,” they scientifically could not and never would.

But regardless of what the not-so-specific “system” in question was, it always came down to how it could be implemented. That is such a managerial and government centric point of view: we say it in the passive tense, but we really mean implemented by governors. At its very core, it is basically a question of, how will the elites manage to run this system, to their advantage, without sacrificing their governing/elite status in society? It is a question posed to see whether or not the governors would be able to govern (rather than “represent”), and has very little to do with people, except as an ambiguous, unidentifiable, homogenous mass–the governors’ distinctive “Other.” The function of government thus becomes something like satisfying the masses, appeasing them, keeping them at bay: preserving government.

The logic of this type of discussion, however, does not challenge questions regarding the concentration of power. It instead re-affirms the basic underlying division between governor and mass, and presupposes its necessity. It might differ in its goals or prescriptions, but the shape of power remains unchanged, even if its color and composition might change. Thus elites remain in competition, in political struggle with one another, over the position of “governor,” even if occasionally they might attempt to appeal to ‘the masses’ for support. This logic keeps the political struggle between elite and elite over government, rather than between governor and mass. At best, it is a process which has the potential to produce new elites and dispose of old ones: but that is not saying much, because the fact that the act of governing inherently consists of a division between elite and mass is not new.

Moreover, when activists who are disillusioned with current government shape, form, direction, or procedure do make an effort at ‘change,’ they are often tempted to join this elite class of governors, rationalizing it as a quick way to “make things better” and ‘accomplish’ ’something’ since, it is believed, no better opportunities are available. And while it might make some things “better” for some people, it is impossible to deny that “making things better” does not question the logic of governance, the concentration of political power in the hands of the governors, or the division between mass and governor.

Furthermore, even if there is no assimilation into the elite class, the very style of this sort of activism, which revolves around writing letters, making phone calls, issuing ‘demands,’ etcetera, speaks to government, not mass. Rather than devoting efforts to building power outside of government, such as in a popular or mass organizing, it simply re-affirms the power of government first by relying on government’s exclusive power to make change, and second by asking ‘the masses’ to believe in the potential of government: “yes we can.” Instead of building movements outside of government, one moves to build government.

When it ever became the case that media and academia presumed that it was their sole role or job to act as advisers to governors in management of the people, I am not sure, however it is undeniable that this posturing of giving advice to the governors shows that media and academia speak to government, not to mass. This is all to say that media and academia have very little interest in mass, and when they do speak to them, it is only on behalf of government in the news section, repeating official claims and reports, and to government in the opinion section, offering advice and suggestions to the governors. When they independently attempt to look at this blob, when they try to find out a little bit more about it, it is only in order to play an advisory role to clueless governors about something which must be addressed. It is extremely difficult to find an investigative analysis in either realm which does not ultimately explain itself in instrumental terms: “it is important to study this because of X public policy [government] concerns” and the like. Universities after all are traditionally supported by governors, especially in colonized countries where it is in the interests of the colonizing power to produce ‘natives’ who can assist in the administrative enterprise.

When government policies tend to be as disastrous as they are nowadays, it is understandable that one might want to curb their worst excesses by putting a little bit of human back into its calculus and expanding the scope of its analysis, or even to favor one elite over another as far as governance is concerned. But we should be very clear that this type of intervention speaks to governors, not to mass. I am having a hard time thinking of how media and academia as they are now can even have the capability to speak to mass: maybe that is a function which only literature, film, and the arts can fulfill because they do not presume to assist in management schemes nor do they harbor messianic attitudes and interests in getting their hands in the mess of what they narrowly define as the political world, that is, the world of governors.