restoring american cultural institutions

Restoring American Cultural Institutions

Jerry L. Martin

O ne of the most striking things about our cultural institutions is their astonishing ideological uni-

formity. To an extraordinary extent, the dominant voices in our colleges and universities, museums and arts groups, newspapers and television, and "mainstream" churches advocate the same cultural agenda-- expanded government, welfare rights, hostility to American "imperialism," racial preferences, gay pride, suspicion of Biblical religion, "green" environmen- talism, funding for obscene art, pro-choice on abor- tion, anti-choice on schools.

I trust myriad examples will come to the reader's mind, but let me mention just one area of impact-- language. While the federal courts by and large saved us from speech codes, many colleges and individual professors have produced guides to what terms can and cannot be used. The following example could be multiplied countless times. Students in a class on me- dieval Christianity at Duke University are instructed never to use the "masculinist" phrase, "God the Fa- ther," even though those are the actual words of the texts they are studying.

The phenomenon has even hit computer software. The National Association of Scholars (NAS), an organization that makes little attempt to be politically correct, found that its new spellcheck program objected to the mention of "the University of Notre Dame." "Dame," the program reported, is a term offensive to women.

This combination of ideological uniformity with

enforcement mechanisms is what is meant by "political correctness." Part of the appeal of political correctness is that it is a substitute for thought, especially for thought about morally complex and difficult issues, since it prescribes a right answer for virtually every major issue facing the society, even when the issues are logically unconnected. It is assumed that, if you are appropriately alarmed about global warming, for example, you will also be for racial preferences.

Every issue is a litmus-test. An individual who de- viates on a single issue, risks his or her standing as an ideologically acceptable person. When historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. published a withering critique of extreme multiculturalism, The Disuniting of America, he found himself called a "conservative" by The New York Times and a "neo-nativist" by educational leaders. His commencement invitations plummeted.

Although official college spokesmen deny it in public, every professor I know, whatever his or her politics, agrees that there are certain views you just cannot take publicly on campus and remain in good standing. The degree to which professors feel compelled to re- frain from saying in public things they say (to their best friends) in private is extraordinary. It can only be compared to how intellectuals behave in dictatorships.

Ideological deviation can be fatal to the careers of those who are not tenured. For tenured faculty, there are other sanctions--calls for dismissal, denial of awards and honors, reassignment to other courses, loss of speaking opportunities, and shunning. Even sym-

36 / SOCIETY �9 J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 1999

pathetic colleagues withdraw, afraid to be tarred with the same brush.

In some cases, the penalties are harsher. The distinguished Mark Twain scholar, Allen Gribben of the University of Texas at Austin, publicly challenged the adoption of an ideologically loaded freshman com- position reader. After harassing phone calls at all hours of the night and physical threats to his children, Gribben resigned and left for another, less prestigious university. A spokesman for the American Associa- tion of University Professors denounced Gribben as a threat to academic freedom, not his persecutors.

Campus ideologues seem to agree with the pope who said, "Error has no rights." They do not hesitate either to prevent impure thoughts from being expressed on campus or to use the resources of the university for what can only be called indoctrination. Thus "celebrat- ing diversity" and "global interconnectedness," in- nocuous slogans that cover a heavy ideological agenda, should be, as they say in higher education, "infused into the curriculum." From freshman orientation to the classroom to sensitivity training, no student is allowed to escape. Faculty and students who express disagreement with the dominant ideology are not seen as invitations to intellectual debate, but as manifesting what the critical pedagogical literature calls "the problem of resistance." They are viewed as shallow and insen- sitive at best, cruel and racist at worst--not individuals of good will whose ideas must be met by argument, but people to be purged, the kind of people Khomeini used to call devils.

entertainment, labor unions and churches. Control over those institutions--"intellectual hegemony"-- i s the key to control over the whole society. If you want to take over a country, Gramsci argued, do not assault the government; capture its culture. A "revolution of the sprit" will be achieved by "the long march through the institutions." One of Gramsci's admirer's, Joseph Femia, summarizes his view this way:

What is needed is a "war of position" on the cultural front. This strategy requires steady penetration and subversion of the complex and multiple mechanisms of ideological diffusion. The point of the struggle is to conquer one after another all the agencies of civil society (e.g., the schools, the universities, the publishing houses, the trade unions).

Gramsci advocated a three-prong strategy. First, delegitimize existing norms and institutions. Second, infiltrate and co-opt existing institutions. Third, create alternative institutions.

The first task is destructive--the delegitimization of traditional values and institutions. This task requires a persistent critique of the culture and its norms. This is the task, in our society, of what Irving Kristol has called "the adversary culture"--a body of intellectuals criticizing everything from religion to capitalism to the patriarchal family. Gramsci's argument that monogamy is a capitalist plot is an example of such a critique:

The Long March Through the Institutions The Italian Marxist revisionist Antonio Gramsci

understood the importance of cultural institutions. He rejected the picture of an epiphenomenal cultural and intellectual superstructure determined by an economic base. And, using a military metaphor, Gramsci argued against a "war of maneuver" that would involve direct assaults on the power structure through strikes, coups, and armed revolution.

Gramsci saw that modern industrial democracies are too powerful and complex for a direct assault. Moreover, they are not oppressive in the ordinary sense. They rest on consent, not force. The worker who believes that life is free, the economic system is fair, and the political system is democratic is not a likely candidate for revolution.

But how, he asked, is consent produced? He an- swered: by cultural institutions that have the power to shape individuals' expectations and attitudes--schools and universities, newspapers and publishing, arts and

It seems clear that the new industrialism wants monogamy: it wants the man as worker not to squander his nervous energies in the disorderly and stimulating pursuit of occasional sexual sat- isfaction. The employee who goes to work after a night of 'excess' is no good for work.

Adversary culture intellectuals can produce similar critiques for one cultural norm after another until the society no longer has any moral and intellectual props holding it up.

The second prong is "cultural penetration," the in- filtration and co-opting of existing institutions. It is necessary, he said, to "assimilate and conquer 'ideological ly ' the tradit ional intel lectuals ." Having delegitimized religion and traditional social norms, adversary culture intellectuals are in a position to de- fine a new moral high ground based on ideological politics. The new moral high ground is what we would call political correctness.

RESTORING AMERICAN CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS / 37

In this process, a transvaluation takes place. Previ- ously, politics was based on morality and morality on religion. The new ideology reverses the order. Thus, for the politically correct, the Promise Keepers are wrong when they base political views on religion. And those who rewrite the Bible to conform to current political ideas are right. Recently, a spokesperson for one of the mainstream Protestant churches was asked what his organization thought about prayer in the schools. "Oh, we don't get involved in issues like that," he said, "We are more concerned about welfare reform." Poli- tics should drive religion, not the other way around.

When it is impossible to capture existing organizations, Gramsci advocated the creation of alternative institutions--alternative newspapers, presses, parties, schools, workers organizations, and the l ike-- to challenge existing organizations. He assumed that, under capitalist hegemony, it would usually not be possible to capture existing institutions. In this regard, he was mistaken. He incorrectly assumed that capitalists would understand the importance of controlling the culture. The owners of even the telecommunications and entertainment industries show little interest in the content of the messages their media convey.

Central to Gramsci's strategy is that the ideological war takes place on all fronts--political, economic, social , cul tural , and p e r s o n a l - - a n d , as one of Solzhenitzen's villains says, "The front is everywhere." As more recent slogans have it, even "the per- sonal is political." Hence, every teacher should be teaching politically. Every minister should be preach- ing politically. Every employee should influence co- workers as well as company policy in the correct ideological direction.

The goal, Gramsci said, is a "new conformism" that "will permit new possibilities for self-discipline, that is, freedom." The aim is a new "integrative culture" with "moral and intellectual unity" and an "organic" relationship between the rulers and ruled such as France had under the Jacobins. He sometimes de- scribed his own view as "totalitarian," not to support authoritarianism but to emphasize the pervasiveness of the ideological conflict.

The Kerensky Syndrome To an extent unimagined by Gramsci, political cor-

rectness has succeeded in "the long march through the institutions." How is this possible? Gramsci was pre- scribing strategy for a highly-organized political organization with a mass base, the Communist Party. In America, the ideological vanguard is quite small and disorganized. And, holding views--Marxism, post-

modernism, gender feminism, queer theory, and the l ike--far outside the mainstream, this group has no mass base.

The "long march through the institutions" has been possible because, although the number of ideologically committed individuals is limited, they are lo- cated in key institutions, most notably the universities. As American Council of Trustees and Alumni chairman Lynne V. Cheney has noted, "Colleges and universities are the wellspring of the ideas around which we organize ourselves .... " And they train the teachers, lawyers, journalists, and religious leaders. Con- trol the universities and you control the culture.

How can a minority control the universities? The key is the Kerensky Syndrome. The Bolsheviks did not have a majority in the government established immediately after the Russian Revolution, but they were the group with the clearest agenda, greatest discipline, and most ruthless tactics. The Russian president, Aleksandr Kerensky, a good democrat, and his allies were no match for them. It is now almost axi- omatic among political scientists that, in collective decision-making, an organized minority can dominate a disorganized majority.

The ideologically committed go to every meeting prepared to move their agenda forward, demanding revamped curricula, new programs, new faculty hires, new coordinators and sensitivity trainers, special dorms and student centers, separate freshman orientations and graduation ceremonies. Many faculty are not in favor of the changes they propose, but the changes pass anyway and one change builds on another: first a program, then new faculty, then a department, then even more faculty, then ideologically-based courses are required for all students.

But why do faculty concerned about these trends rarely object to them? There was a best-seller a while back with the intimidating title, Winning Through In- timidation. On campus, intimidation works. Anyone who opposes, or even proposes applying normal academic standards of evaluation to, a politically correct initiative is denounced, defamed, and discredited. Doubt the fairness of affirmative action and you will be called a racist. Question the scholarly standards of the women's studies program and you will be called a sexist. Doubt the centrality of gay and lesbian studies to the life of the mind and you will be called a homophobe.

These are powerful labels that, correctly used, de- note hateful attitudes and destructive practices. Care- lessly used, they defame fair-minded individuals and silence legitimate disagreement. Racism and sexism

38 / SOCIETY �9 J A N U A R W F E B R U A R Y 1999

are charges it is impossible to rebut. They are the tac- tical nuclear weapons of political correctness.

The second main tactic of political correctness is to attach proposals far outside the mainstream to ide- als central to American culture. Americans believe in equality. They do not like elitism. Hence accusations of elitism can be used anytime anyone advocates standards of excellence--whether in admissions, hiring, or curriculum--and this charge will resonate with the public. Americans favor the underdog, so victimology works with us. And we have a culture of rights, which encourages everybody to describe their preferences as rights. Hence, politically correct constituencies can claim a right to special treatment and expanded resources. To an unwitting public, the claim will seem indistinguishable from more valid claims.

Finally, we are still, as David Riesman and his colleagues put it in The Lonely Crowd, an "other-directed" society. We do not like to offend people. If anyone is offended, we apologize and promise not to do it again. Since an action or behavior is considered offensive whenever someone claims to have been offended, this is also a charge against which one cannot defend one- self. It is an easy slide from civility and good manners to speech codes and language police.

The Long March Back If Gramsci were advising American intellectuals

concerned about the ideological control of their cultural institutions, what might he tell them? First, that, for America's diverse and bewildering array of cultural institutions, there is no Archmidean point, no single point of leverage that can be used to restore their integrity. Remember that "the front is everywhere." If the ideologues are attacking everywhere, then we must defend everywhere.

Second, Gramsci would say, we must move beyond defense. If the ideologues can assume that the ground they have gained will never be challenged--a cultural version of the Brezhnev Doctrine--they will always have a secure base for further expansion. We have to regain lost ground, and the only way to do that is to fight for it on their territory, which means challenging their "intellectual hegemony." We can begin the long march back, Gramsci would say, if we follow several strategic maxims:

Challenge Ideological Hegemony. If the front is everywhere, we must challenge the dominant ideology wherever we happen to find ourselves--in our workplace, in our children's school, in our churches, in civic groups, and especially in our colleges and universities--whether as faculty, administrators, stu-

dents, parents, alumni, donors, trustees, or just tax- payers and voters.

We have to recognize that the playing field will never be level. We will play by the rules--because it is the ethical and intellectual norms of the civilization that we are defending--and they will not. But, within the rules, we need to be as focused, aggressive, and persistent as those who are trying to pervert the institutions. We need to give as much attention to tactics as they do. As historian John Fonte likes to point out, "Winning the intellectual argument does not guaran- tee victory."

Refuse To Be Intimidated. Until recently, the threat of being called a "racist," "sexist," or "homophobe" was enough to si lence opposition. Most faculty hunkered low in their offices while the activists ran roughshod over their institutions. Faculty are begin- ning to find that, if they just face down the name-call- ing, they can win. It is not racist to teach students serious materials or to hold them to high standards. It is not sexist to base history and science on evidence rather than on somebody's idea of what "empowers" women. It is time to start speaking the truth. We should provide an unrelenting critique of politically-tenden- tious scholarship and programs.

When the Nazis demanded that the Danes identify their Jews, the Danish king refused. He and Danes everywhere wore Stars of David. Even the Nazis gave in. Refuse to be intimidated and intimidation will lose its power.

Take O u r Case To The Public. Justice Louis Brandeis said, "Sunshine is the best disinfectant." Most people have no idea how far standards have fallen, how politicized and trivialized some academic programs have become, and how much ideological non- sense is propagated by campus apparatchiks who run student affairs, affirmative action programs, diversity offices, summer orientations, dormitories, and the like. Whenever the public learns what is happening, whether it is eliminating the Shakespeare requirement for En- glish majors or spending public funds on the advo- cacy of sadomasochism, they are shocked.

And, when the advocates of campus trends are publicly challenged, their arguments will not stand public scrutiny. On campus, they have established an intellectual orthodoxy that makes their slogans canonical. When challenged publicly, they often retreat or deny what they were doing. For example, campus officials engaged in race-based admissions regularly deny doing so---but refuse to make the numbers public. Un- der attack for the neglect of the classics, the Modern Language Association hired political spinmeister Ann

RESTORING AMERICAN CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS I 39

Lewis and took the line that the classics are taught as much as they used to be---even though everyone in the field knows this to be false. When Georgetown University eliminated the Shakespeare requirement for English majors, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni-- then the National Alumni Forum--held a teach-in on campus with students, parents, school teachers, distinguished scholars, and actors from the Shakespeare Theatre. Amazingly, the university's re- sponse was to deny changing the requirement!

When people cannot defend what they are doing, when their success depends entirely on secrecy and intimidation, or on misleading the public, they are doomed-- i f others are sufficiently courageous to challenge them. Take your case to the public and you can win.

Challenge Undeserved Moral Authority. Institu- tions that have betrayed their trust do not deserve the moral authority they bear. However, until the public is made aware of this fact, these institutions will con- t inue to use their aura of l eg i t imacy to shield mediocrity, self-indulgence, and ideological imposi- tion. To remove this unjustified power, we must, in Gramscian terms, delegitimize them.

The Modem Language Association was a highly respected organization until it allowed itself to be cap- tured by politics and postmodernism. Now, every an- nual meeting is the butt of a journalistic free-for-all, as bizarre paper topics provide laughing materials for the educated public.

The moral authority of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) was based on its defense of academic freedom. When it failed to stand up against speech codes and other forms of political correctness, the AAUP lost that authority.

The legitimacy of the accrediting associations de- pended on their providing professional, non-ideological evaluations of colleges and universities. They lost that legitimacy when they starting trying to impose an ideological agenda.

In similar ways, the history profession hurt itself by supporting politically-correct history standards for the schools. The Smithsonian Institution and the National Gallery of Art have tarnished their reputations by a series of ideologically-driven exhibits blaming Pearl Har- bor on American imperialism and treating Frederick Remington as a shill for capitalist exploitation.

The university has provided the auspices for such extreme behavior unrelated to or subversive of teaching and the pursuit of truth that it threatens to delegitimize itself. It has been subjected to a series of withering critiques, mostly by authors who are them-

selves academics, many of which have become best- sellers. As a result, public confidence in higher education is at an all-time low---down to 25 percent in the most recent poll from 66 percent in 1965.

The self-delegitmization of the university is unfor- tunate, since the university is an essential institution in a civilized society as well as an engine of economic progress. But as long as the university squanders its prestige in the defense of the indefensible, it will con- tinue to lose moral authority. And it should lose the halo that allows it to shield political correctness, ideological conformity, mediocrity, unseemly racial poli- cies, and self-indulgent management.

Create Alternatives To Institutions That Have Betrayed Their Trust. In the near term at least, we cannot expect to redeem our colleges and universities, journals and professional associations. Therefore, a Gramscian would conclude, it is important to create alternative organizations that can provide havens--or bases of operations--for intellectually serious scholars.

This strategy is already being followed. Distin- guished literary scholars who found the Modem Lan- guage Association hopeless, have started an alternative group, the Society of Literary Scholars and Critics, and the group is flourishing. It already has hundreds of members, and it is planning to create the full appa- ratus of a learned society, including a journal and a placement service. Similarly, under the leadership of the redoubtable Eugene Genovese, a broad-based group of historians who want history to be based on evidence rather than politics have created the Histori- cal Society, and art historians led by a leading Renais- sance scholar, Bruce Cole of Indiana University, have created the Association for Art History.

In a similar vein, viewing the entrenched bureau- cracies at the established accrediting associations as beyond reform, college presidents who support liberal education have started an alternative accrediting association, the American Academy of Liberal Edu- cation (AALE). The AALE has been certified by the U.S. Department of Education and has already begun accrediting colleges and academic programs.

Similarly, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) offers an altemative to official alumni organizations as a way for alumni to express their ideas about university affairs. And, through its Alumni and Trustees for Higher Education (ATHENA) Project, ACTA provides an alternative or supplement to the Association of Governing Boards, which echoes views of the higher education establishment.

Activate The Constituencies. As disturbing as the fact may be to campus ideologues, we live in a demo-

40 / SOCIETY �9 J A N U A R W F E B R U A R Y 1999

cratic society. What happens in our colleges and universities, private as well as public, affects all of us. All have a right to be heard. As long as decisions are made within the closed corridors of campus, the ideologues will win. People who are not subject to intimidation have to become involved.

Whether public or private, colleges and universities are governed by boards of trustees, who have fi- duciary responsibility for the academic as well as the financial health of their institutions. While college presidents do a remarkable job of training trustees to be passive boosters, many are becoming aware of the problems on campus and their obligations with regard to them--in part through ACTA's own efforts. Through conferences, workshops, and board orientations, the ATHENA Project educates trustees with regard to their responsibilities and provides practical advice for the conduct of their duties, especially with regard to academic excellence and freedom. While trustees should never micromanage, they do have a duty to safeguard the intellectual integrity and educational mission of the institutions they hold in trust.

Never Surrender. Some opponents of trends within the university tend to be declinists. While the forces of political correctness believe they have history on their side, the forces of civilization tend to think that history is a downward spiral.

It is difficult to predict the overall course of history, but the German philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that we have a moral obligation to hold those beliefs, such as free-will, essential to moral action. He called these beliefs "postulates of practical rea- son." To his list, we might add another: "Be optimistic." Consumer advocate Ralph Nader has often tilted at windmills--and sometimes the windmills lost. In the midst of one of his many battles, he was asked whether he was optimistic about the outcome. "Of course," he replied, "pessimism has no function."

But perhaps it is not so much optimism that is essential as a certain steadfastness. Former Commen- tary editor Norman Podhoretz was recently asked

whether we would win the fight over our cultural institutions. "I don't know- - I don't think about that," Podhoretz replied, "I am not someone who has to know he will win in order to fight."

After the fall of France, every British soldier had been expelled from the soil of Europe. German victory was, it seemed, complete and permanent. Adolf Hitler exulted that the British had forever been re- moved from the continent of Europe. The very next morning, to Hitler's astonishment, Churchill launched raids all along the coast.

A final story. When his enemies trumped up mur- der charges against labor organizer Joe Hill, he was convicted and sentenced to die. His movement col- lapsed as his followers all over the country went into dispirited mourning. Hearing the news, Hill immediately sent his followers a telegram, "Don't mourn- - organize!"

SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS

Lynne V. Cheney. Telling the Truth: Why Our Culture and Our Country Have Stopped Making Sense-- and What We Can Do About It. New York, Simon and Schuster, 1995.

Joseph V. Femia. Gramsci's Political Thought: Hege- mony, Consciousness, and the Revolutionary Process, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1987.

Antonio Gramsci. Selections from the Prison Notebooks, ed., trans. Q. Hoare and G. Nowell Smith. London, Lawrence & Wishart, 1971.

, Selections from Political Writings, 1910-1920, ed. Q. Hoare, trans. J. Mathews. London, Lawrence & Wishart, 1977.

Jerry L. Martin, former acting chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, is president of the Ameri- can Council of Trustees and Alumni. His scholarly work is in epistemology and the philosophy of mind. He is co-au- tho~ with Anne D. Neal, of The Shakespeare File: What English Majors Are Really Studying and The Intelligent Donor's Guide to College Giving.

restoring american cultural institutions

Documents