It is often presumed that intellectuals have little or no political power. Perched in a privileged ivory tower, disconnected from the real world, embroiled in meaningless academic debates over specialized minutia, or floating in the abstruse clouds of high-minded theory, intellectuals are frequently portrayed as not only cut off from political reality but as incapable of having any meaningful impact on it. The Central Intelligence Agency thinks otherwise.
As a
matter of fact, the agency responsible for coups d’état, targeted
assassinations and the clandestine manipulation of foreign governments not only
believes in the power of theory, but it dedicated significant resources to
having a group of secret agents pore over what some consider to be the most
recondite and intricate theory ever produced. For in an
intriguing research paper written in 1985, and recently released with
minor redactions through the Freedom of Information Act, the CIA reveals that
its operatives have been studying the complex, international trend-setting
French theory affiliated with the names of Michel Foucault, Jacques Lacan and
Roland Barthes.
The
image of American spies gathering in Parisian cafés to assiduously study and
compare notes on the high priests of the French intelligentsia might shock
those who presume this group of intellectuals to be luminaries whose
otherworldly sophistication could never be caught in such a vulgar dragnet, or
who assume them to be, on the contrary, charlatan peddlers of incomprehensible
rhetoric with little or no impact on the real world. However, it should come as
no surprise to those familiar with the CIA’s longstanding and ongoing
investment in a global cultural war, including support for its most avant-garde
forms, which has been well documented by researchers like Frances Stonor
Saunders, Giles Scott-Smith, Hugh Wilford (and I have made my own contribution in Radical
History & the Politics of Art).
Thomas
W. Braden, the former supervisor of cultural activities at the CIA, explained
the power of the Agency’s cultural assault in a
frank insider’s account published in 1967: “I remember the enormous
joy I got when the Boston Symphony Orchestra [which was supported by the CIA]
won more acclaim for the U.S. in Paris than John Foster Dulles or Dwight D.
Eisenhower could have bought with a hundred speeches.” This was by no means a
small or liminal operation. In fact, as Wilford has aptly argued, the Congress
for Cultural Freedom (CCF), which was headquartered in Paris and later
discovered to be a CIA front organization during the cultural Cold War, was
among the most important patrons in world history, supporting an incredible
range of artistic and intellectual activities. It had offices in 35 countries,
published dozens of prestige magazines, was involved in the book industry,
organized high-profile international conferences and art exhibits, coordinated
performances and concerts, and contributed ample funding to various cultural
awards and fellowships, as well as to front organizations like the Farfield
Foundation.
The
intelligence agency understands culture and theory to be crucial weapons in the
overall arsenal it deploys to perpetuate US interests around the world. The
recently released research paper from 1985, entitled “France:
Defection of the Leftist Intellectuals,” examines—undoubtedly in order to
manipulate—the French intelligentsia and its fundamental role in shaping the
trends that generate political policy. Suggesting that there has been a
relative ideological balance between the left and the right in the history of
the French intellectual world, the report highlights the monopoly of the left
in the immediate postwar era—to which, we know, the Agency was rabidly
opposed—due to the Communists’ key role in resisting fascism and ultimately
winning the war against it. Although the right had been massively discredited
because of its direct contribution to the Nazi death camps, as well as its
overall xenophobic, anti-egalitarian and fascist agenda (according to the CIA’s
own description), the unnamed secret agents who drafted the study outline with
palpable delight the return of the right since approximately the early 1970s.
More
specifically, the undercover cultural warriors applaud what they see as a
double movement that has contributed to the intelligentsia shifting its
critical focus away from the US and toward the USSR. On the left, there was a
gradual intellectual disaffection with Stalinism and Marxism, a progressive
withdrawal of radical intellectuals from public debate, and a theoretical move
away from socialism and the socialist party. Further to the right, the
ideological opportunists referred to as the New Philosophers and the New Right
intellectuals launched a high-profile media smear campaign against Marxism.
While
other tentacles of the worldwide spy organization were involved in overthrowing
democratically elected leaders, providing intelligence and funding to fascist
dictators, and supporting right-wing death squads, the Parisian central
intelligentsia squadron was collecting data on how the theoretical world’s
drift to the right directly benefitted US foreign policy. The left-leaning
intellectuals of the immediate postwar era had been openly critical of US
imperialism. Jean-Paul Sartre’s media clout as an outspoken Marxist critic, and
his notable role—as the founder of Libération—in blowing the cover
of the CIA station officer in Paris and dozens of undercover operatives, was closely
monitored by the Agency and considered a very serious problem.
In contrast, the anti-Soviet and anti-Marxist atmosphere of the emerging neoliberal era diverted public scrutiny and provided excellent cover for the CIA’s dirty wars by making it “very difficult for anyone to mobilize significant opposition among intellectual elites to US policies in Central America, for example.” Greg Grandin, one of the leading historians of Latin America, perfectly summarized this situation in The Last Colonial Massacre: “Aside from making visibly disastrous and deadly interventions in Guatemala in 1954, the Dominican Republic in 1965, Chile in 1973, and El Salvador and Nicaragua during the 1980s, the United States has lent quiet and steady financial, material, and moral support for murderous counterinsurgent terror states. […] But the enormity of Stalin’s crimes ensures that such sordid histories, no matter how compelling, thorough, or damning, do not disturb the foundation of a worldview committed to the exemplary role of the United States in defending what we now know as democracy.”
It is in
this context that the masked mandarins commend and support the relentless
critique that a new generation of anti-Marxist thinkers like Bernard-Henri
Levy, André Glucksmann and Jean-François Revel unleashed on “the last clique of
Communist savants” (composed, according to the anonymous agents, of
Sartre, Barthes, Lacan and Louis Althusser). Given the leftwing leanings of
these anti-Marxists in their youth, they provide the perfect model for
constructing deceptive narratives that amalgamate purported personal political
growth with the progressive march of time, as if both individual life and
history were simply a matter of “growing up” and recognizing that profound
egalitarian social transformation is a thing of the—personal and
historical—past. This patronizing, omniscient defeatism not only serves to
discredit new movements, particularly those driven by the youth, but it also
mischaracterizes the relative successes of counter-revolutionary repression as
the natural progress of history.
Even
theoreticians who were not as opposed to Marxism as these intellectual
reactionaries have made a significant contribution to an environment of
disillusionment with transformative egalitarianism, detachment from social
mobilization and “critical inquiry” devoid of radical politics. This is
extremely important for understanding the CIA’s overall strategy in its broad
and profound attempts to dismantle the cultural left in Europe and elsewhere.
In recognizing it was unlikely that it could abolish it entirely, the world’s
most powerful spy organization has sought to move leftist culture away from
resolute anti-capitalist and transformative politics toward center-left
reformist positions that are less overtly critical of US foreign and domestic
policies. In fact, as Saunders has demonstrated in detail, the Agency went
behind the back of the McCarthy-driven Congress in the postwar era in order to
directly support and promote leftist projects that steered cultural producers
and consumers away from the resolutely egalitarian left. In severing and
discrediting the latter, it also aspired to fragment the left in general,
leaving what remained of the center left with only minimal power and public
support (as well as being potentially discredited due to its complicity with
right-wing power politics, an issue that continues to plague contemporary
institutionalized parties on the left).
It is in
this light that we must understand the intelligence agency’s fondness for
conversion narratives and its deep appreciation for “reformed Marxists,” a
leitmotif that traverses the research paper on French theory. “Even more
effective in undermining Marxism,” the moles write, “were those intellectuals
who set out as true believers to apply Marxist theory in the social sciences
but ended by rethinking and rejecting the entire tradition.” They cite in
particular the profound contribution made by the Annales School of
historiography and structuralism—particularly Claude Lévi-Strauss and
Foucault—to the “critical demolition of Marxist influence in the social
sciences.” Foucault, who is referred to as “France’s most profound and
influential thinker,” is specifically applauded for his praise of the New Right
intellectuals for reminding philosophers that “‘bloody’ consequences” have
“flowed from the rationalist social theory of the 18th-century Enlightenment
and the Revolutionary era.” Although it would be a mistake to collapse anyone’s
politics or political effect into a single position or result, Foucault’s
anti-revolutionary leftism and his perpetuation of the blackmail of the
Gulag—i.e. the claim that expansive radical movements aiming at profound social
and cultural transformation only resuscitate the most dangerous of
traditions—are perfectly in line with the espionage agency’s overall strategies
of psychological warfare.
The
CIA’s reading of French theory should give us pause, then, to reconsider the
radical chic veneer that has accompanied much of its Anglophone reception.
According to a stagist conception of progressive history (which is usually
blind to its implicit teleology), the work of figures like Foucault, Derrida
and other cutting-edge French theorists is often intuitively affiliated with a
form of profound and sophisticated critique that presumably far surpasses
anything found in the socialist, Marxist or anarchist traditions. It is
certainly true and merits emphasis that the Anglophone reception of French
theory, as John McCumber has aptly pointed out, had important political
implications as a pole of resistance to the false political neutrality, the
safe technicalities of logic and language, or the direct ideological conformism
operative in the McCarthy-supported traditions of Anglo-American philosophy.
However, the theoretical practices of figures who turned their back on what
Cornelius Castoriadis called the tradition of radical critique—meaning
anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist resistance—surely contributed to the
ideological drift away from transformative politics. According to the spy
agency itself, post-Marxist French theory directly contributed to the CIA’s
cultural program of coaxing the left toward the right, while discrediting
anti-imperialism and anti-capitalism, thereby creating an intellectual
environment in which their imperial projects could be pursued unhindered by
serious critical scrutiny from the intelligentsia.
As we
know from the research on the CIA’s program of psychological warfare, the
organization has not only tracked and sought to coerce individuals, but it has
always been keen on understanding and transforming institutions of cultural
production and distribution. Indeed, its study on French theory points to the
structural role universities, publishing houses and the media play in the
formation and consolidation of a collective political ethos. In descriptions
that, like the rest of the document, should invite us to think critically about
the current academic situation in the Anglophone world and beyond, the authors
of the report foreground the ways in which the precarization of academic labor
contributes to the demolition of radical leftism. If strong leftists cannot
secure the material means necessary to carry out our work, or if we are more or
less subtly forced to conform in order to find employment, publish our writings
or have an audience, then the structural conditions for a resolute leftist
community are weakened. The vocationalization of higher education is another
tool used for this end since it aims at transforming people into
techno-scientific cogs in the capitalist apparatus rather than autonomous
citizens with reliable tools for social critique. The theory mandarins of the
CIA therefore praise the efforts on the part of the French government to “push
students into business and technical courses.” They also point to the
contributions made by major publishing houses like Grasset, the mass media and
the vogue of American culture in pushing forward their post-socialist and
anti-egalitarian platform.
What
lessons might we draw from this report, particularly in the current political
environment with its ongoing assault on the critical intelligentsia? First of
all, it should be a cogent reminder that if some presume that intellectuals are
powerless, and that our political orientations do not matter, the organization
that has been one of the most potent power brokers in contemporary world
politics does not agree. The Central Intelligence Agency, as its name
ironically suggests, believes in the power of intelligence and theory, and we
should take this very seriously. In falsely presuming that intellectual work
has little or no traction in the “real world,” we not only misrepresent the
practical implications of theoretical labor, but we also run the risk of
dangerously turning a blind eye to the political projects for which we can
easily become the unwitting cultural ambassadors. Although it is certainly the
case that the French nation-state and cultural apparatus provide a much more
significant public platform for intellectuals than is to be found in many other
countries, the CIA’s preoccupation with mapping and manipulating theoretical
and cultural production elsewhere should serve as a wake-up call to us all.
Second,
the power brokers of the present have a vested interest in cultivating an
intelligentsia whose critical acumen has been dulled or destroyed by fostering
institutions founded on business and techno-science interests, equating
left-wing politics with anti-scientificity, correlating science with a
purported—but false—political neutrality, promoting media that saturate the
airwaves with conformist prattle, sequestering strong leftists outside of major
academic institutions and the media spotlight, and discrediting any call for
radical egalitarian and ecological transformation. Ideally, they seek to
nurture an intellectual culture that, if on the left, is neutralized,
immobilized, listless and content with defeatist hand wringing, or with the
passive criticism of the radically mobilized left. This is one of the reasons
why we might want to consider intellectual opposition to radical leftism, which
preponderates in the U.S. academy, as a dangerous political position: isn’t it
directly complicit with the CIA’s imperialist agenda around the world?
Third,
to counter this institutional assault on a culture of resolute leftism, it is
imperative to resist the precarization and vocationalization of education. It
is equally important to create public spheres of truly critical debate,
providing a broader platform for those who recognize that another world is not
only possible, but is necessary. We also need to band together in order to
contribute to or further develop alternative media, different models of
education, counter-institutions and radical collectives. It is vital to foster
precisely what the covert cultural combatants want to destroy: a culture of
radical leftism with a broad institutional framework of support, extensive
public backing, prevalent media clout and expansive power of mobilization.
Finally,
intellectuals of the world should unite in recognizing our power and seizing
upon it in order to do everything that we can to develop systemic and radical
critique that is as egalitarian and ecological as it is anti-capitalist and
anti-imperialist. The positions that one defends in the classroom or publicly
are important for setting the terms of debate and charting the field of
political possibility. In direct opposition to the spy agency’s cultural
strategy of fragment and polarize, by which it has sought to sever
and isolate the anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist left, while opposing it to
reformist positions, we should federate and mobilize by
recognizing the importance of working together—across the entire left, as
Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor has recently reminded us—for the cultivation of a
truly critical intelligentsia. Rather than proclaiming or bemoaning the
powerlessness of intellectuals, we should harness the ability to speak truth to
power by working together and mobilizing our capacity to collectively create
the institutions necessary for a world of cultural leftism. For it is only in
such a world, and in the echo chambers of critical intelligence that it
produces, that the truths spoken might actually be heard, and thereby change
the very structures of power.
Gabriel
Rockhill is a philosopher, cultural critic and political theorist. He teaches
at Villanova University and Graterford Prison, and he directs the Critical
Theory Workshop at the Sorbonne. His recent books include Counter-History of
the Present (2017), Interventions in Contemporary Thought (2016) and Radical
History & the Politics of Art (2014). Follow on twitter: @GabrielRockhill.
For more information: https://gabrielrockhill.com
No comments:
Post a Comment