Recently Michael Eric Dyson penned a strongly worded critique (severe understatement) of Cornel West in The New Republic, basically arguing West has become a thin shell of his former self. Dyson, who owes his career to West, is one of the many black intellectuals/media spokespersons who’ve fallen into disfavor with West over the past several years as a result of their relationship with President Obama.[foot]I’m not going to link to it, for reasons that should become apparent below. If you haven’t read it, then you should probably not read this piece.[/foot]
Reading it a day after I talked about black popular culture in my second semester Black Politics class, I’m reminded of the early 2001 furor over then Harvard President Larry Summers’ critique of West when West was at Harvard [foot]Summers argued that West should spend much more time on real scholarship and less time on the lecture circuit and non-academic projects like the 2001 spoken word project Sketches of My Culture. West left for Princeton soon after the dispute.[/foot], and much more recent discussions over whether Beyonce was a feminist, whether a New York Times article on Shonda Rhimes was racist, and whether Ava Duvernay should’ve received an Oscar for her movie Selma. Some might argue that I shouldn’t be so reminded. This is much more politically motivated than the others and should be read not just as an attack on West but as an attack on the anti-Obama tendency (such as it exists) among black intellectuals in general.
I don’t believe this piece was politically motivated. There are politics to consider–it isn’t a coincidence that one of the co-editors responsible for the piece used to work on The Melissa Harris-Perry Show, and of course there’s Dyson’s own political history with West to consider. But the politics at play here are not the politics of Obama’s War Room.
However, let’s say that it was. Would the stakes increase if Dyson’s piece weren’t written against West as much as written against the anti-Obama tendency (again, such as it exists)?
No.
In the early nineties, when Cornel West, Michael Eric Dyson, bell hooks, Skip Gates, and Houston Baker became so well-known outside of the academy that the term “black public intellectual” was coined to describe them, Adolph Reed penned two insightful critiques of West and the black public intellectual phenomenon in general. The first (“What Are the Drums Saying, Booker?”) is here, written twenty years ago this month. The second (part of a broader discussion about the first piece) appeared in New Politics Vol 5, Issue 4.
Reed made a few claims.
He argued that scholars like West, Dyson, hooks, and Robin Kelley, were responsible for reproducing a deeply problematic conception of politics that in effect, found politics not only in “real politics” (that is, in voting, in running for office, in political movements, in legislative activity) but also in everyday life and popular culture. For Reed this was both empirically and politically problematic. It was empirically problematic in as much as it placed very very different activities (fast food workers spitting on food, labor unions attempting to organize those same workers) under the same broad general category. It was politically problematic because their conception of politics made the work of political organizing–work was mundane, painstaking, hard, and in some instances, dangerous–so much harder.
Second, he argued that West, Dyson, and hooks, were neither scholars nor activists, but were playing at both. One of the unique dynamics of this moment was that their increased access to public audiences enabled them to shuffle between them and their more academic audiences, enabling them to front like activists when they were around academics, and front like academics when they were in the broader public. This enabled them to basically dodge the fairly hard requirements of being a card-carrying scholar on the one hand, and being a card-carry organizer/activists on the other. Certainly we’ve seen both West and Dyson do this over the past two decades.
Third he argued that their work on black life was not only flat but often times deeply conservative. In Race Matters for instance, Cornel West argued that the most pressing problem black people faced was neither institutional racism nor structural economic dislocation, but rather black nihilism–a term that, when unpacked, functions a lot like the concept of a uniquely black “culture of poverty” in that it places the fault and burden of the black contemporary condition squarely on the shoulders of black folk. Because intellectuals like West were not only phenotypically black but embodied a certain type of black performance, these claims were far easier for them to make, particularly to the white audiences they generally spoke to.
People critiqued Reed’s piece for being acerbic, mean-spirited, and wrong on the facts. But even with the rise of something like #blacklivesmatter I think that over the past several decades we have lost our grip on the function of politics, the number of real political organizers in cities like Baltimore are dwindling, and the progeny of the first generation of black public intellectuals haven’t significantly contributed to our understanding of our contemporary condition, even as some of them claim to engage in politics (often looking to West as a mentor). Reed may have been an ass. But that ass was right.
Indeed reading Reed’s piece brings home to me how little something like Dyson’s attack on West should matter in the grand scheme of things. When West and Tavis Smiley were more prominent I used to routinely defend their attacks on Obama from my friends. I did so more to defend the idea that Obama should be critiqued than to defend West and Smiley per se.
But here?
While I applaud some of West’s activity (his support of Steven Salaita for instance), I think Reed’s critique is even more applicable today than it was twenty years ago. West’s understanding of what politics is, of how politics functions, of when, where, and how we should politically resist, is woefully inadequate, and his understanding pretty much dominates our contemporary intellectual landscape. While some might point to his participation in the #blacklivesmatter movement as positive proof of West’s relevancy, I see it as negative proof. Here are the most important facts about Ferguson:
- Ferguson uses their police force to collect revenue from black citizens through punitive enforcement.
- Black citizens constitute a strong majority of Ferguson residents.
- The vast majority of Ferguson’s elected officials are white.
- Black citizens don’t turn out in local elections.
Focusing on this last fact, it’s important to note that the reason black citizens don’t turn out is not because they are apathetic and aren’t registered. They are, as evidenced by their (enthusiastic) turnout for Obama. The reason black citizens don’t turn out is because Ferguson local elections are held during off-years–that is, they aren’t held the same year as presidential elections. This institutional rule dampens turnout in general, and in this case reinforces white political rule.
But this didn’t have to be the case this time around. That is to say that while Ferguson’s off-elections rule usually dampened turnout across the board, given that black people were already registered to vote, and massive energy was directed at Ferguson through #blacklivesmatter, it didn’t have to do so this time. Indeed because Ferguson was relatively small–meaning that running for office there probably didn’t require significant cash or labor–the entire city’s governing structure could drastically shift.
On April 7, Ferguson held elections for three seats–two contested by African Americans, one contested by a white Michael Brown supporter. The two seats ended up going to African Americans, but the white Brown supporter lost (to the former mayor responsible for the controversial “I Love Ferguson” counter-movement).
This suggests that at least some of the energy of #blacklivesmatter was directed to transforming local politics. But not enough. And while it’s unfair to suggest that West had something to do with this, it is fair to suggest that the idea that local politics matters, that mundane political organizing matters, might not be dead in black communities if black public intellectuals like West and Dyson hadn’t helped to kill it off.
So even if we were to think that Dyson’s piece was primarily inspired by West’s politics, I think we’d be better off focusing our energies elsewhere. Let The New Republic get its clicks from some other population. But particularly given the fact that Dyson’s piece is not primarily driven by politics I’m even more firm in my suggestion that we leave the dispute between Dyson and West to Dyson, West, and others who routinely speak for four or five figure checks, and that those of us with the capacity to do so, help to rebuild a more robust politics within black communities. As Reed suggests:
In a perverse revision of the old norm of labor solidarity, “an injury to one is an injury to all,” now it’s the black (haute) bourgeoisie that suffers injustice on behalf of the black masses. It’s prominent black individuals’ interests and aspirations that are asserted—under the flag of positive images, role models, equivalent vulnerability to racism, and other such class-inflected bullshit—as crucial concerns for the race as a whole.
The sooner we move away from the tendency of defending the relatively powerful black professional managerial class no matter what they suggest their politics are the better.
Good piece of commentary, Lester!
One question: you said “… if black public intellectuals like West and Dyson hadn’t helped to kill it off.” I’m not certain how West and Dyson helped to kill off “… the idea that local politics matters, that mundane political organizing matters ….?” Clearly, there must have been some organizing on a local basis to bring the voters out during the off-year elections in Ferguson? National actors like West and Dyson can certainly inform local action but they cannot trump effective local action to register and get out the vote. Those not voting are not likely to be influenced by West and Dyson in the first place.
One other thing: I think that you should put the link to the Dyson piece in your references. In this sound-bite world we live in, it is possible to miss things and it would seem to be a good service of your blog to make access to source materials easily available — like you did with the one Reed piece.
Reed’s critique of West had real bite in the ’90s. Not so much anymore. He’s made genuine sacrifices because of his opposition to Obama (churches once open to him won’t speak to him anymore — for someone with his background, this matters). Yeah, he wrote some genuinely screwed-up things in the past and he hasn’t done real scholarly work in a long time. I don’t care very much in this case. At the moment his influence as a famous outspoken black socialist who’s willing to call Obama what he is — a war criminal and representative of the ruling class — is the most important thing.
As far as “defending the relatively powerful black professional managerial class” goes, well, you might be surprised as to what West wrote about the “parvenu black petite bourgeoisie” in Social Text in 1984, in a piece about the ’60s black liberation movement. One of the best things he’s ever written. See:
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/download/fedora_content/download/ac:157320/CONTENT/The_Paradox_of_the_Afro-American_Rebellion.pdf
First thanks for the link (and for reading!).
Second you’re right. Along with West’s support of the Steven Salaita case I do think it’s important to note that West sacrificed a great deal in his decision to take the stances he has. But I’d neither call him a black socialist, nor would I defend him in this particular case.
At this late date I think someone in West’s position who calls himself a socialist (and he does) probably is one. I admit that his politics have been inconsistent over the years. I used to be very critical of him. But the role he’s playing in U.S. (extraparliamentary) politics is (almost) all to the good.
If he was really just a poseur (and I think after Race Matters was a hit he’d become one, for too long) I don’t think he’d be giving interviews like this:
http://newpol.org/content/president-obama-and-crisis-black-america-interview-cornel-west
(BTW: West ended up not voting for Obama. He couldn’t bring himself to do it.)
On this we disagree. I think when it comes to political identities we should take more into account than individual ascriptions. And I’m also thinking about those six figure checks he likely still gets.
Lester Spence :: Associate Professor, Political Science, Johns Hopkins University :: https://lesterspence.com :: protocol.by/lks
West getting six-figure checks doesn’t bug me — it depends on how he spends those checks, what organizations he’s giving serious dollars too. I know he gives significant cash to Democratic Socialists of America.
I suspect he also took a pay cut when he quit Princeton to work full-time at Union Theological Seminary.
“West ended up not voting for Obama. He couldn’t bring himself to do it.” I’m glad you posted this because I have been lambasting Dr. West for 2 1/2 years for saying that he would vote for Obama in a Vice News interview published 10/18/2012. I assumed based on that interview it was a done deal. On 10/23/2012 I wrote the following in an email:
“Because Romney is unfit to be president, some are inclined to vote for Obama out of fear. I too am afraid—not just of a Romney administration, but also of another Obama administration and of the complete loss of a government for anyone other than the 1%. Voting for Romney would be irresponsible. But … voting for Obama is equally reckless.” – Dr. Bart Gruzalski
“I’m strategic. We have to tell that truth about a system that’s corrupt—both parties are poisoned by big money and tied to big banks and corporations. Speaking on that is a matter of intellectual integrity. American politics are not a matter of voting your moral conscience—if I voted my moral conscience it would probably be for Jill Stein. But it’s strategic in terms of the actual possibilities and real options available for poor and working people.” – Dr. Cornel West
My plug nickel: When we compare Bart Gruzalski’s analysis to Cornel West’s analysis, it becomes crystal clear that people like Dr. West, who know better, are sacrificing truth on an altar of rationalizations. I understand those who have been seduced by “spiritual wickedness in high places,” butCornel West is a self-proclaimed “revolutionary Christian” yet for him political strategy trumps moral conscience. I don’t know how we will ever build a world based on truth, justice, and righteousness, as long as people who clearly know better allow themselves to be mentally incarcerated by the limited parameters of a corrupt system. The scripture says, “Righteousness exalts a nation,” not a lesser evil. Surely Dr. West, if anyone, knows this.
Your post led to this research: In an interview with Time for 10 Questions, Cornel West says he didn’t even vote in 2012. “I couldn’t vote for a war criminal,” he said, calling President Obama’s administration “a Wall Street presidency, a drone presidency, a national surveillance presidency, that violates rights and liberties.”
I owe Dr. West an apology. His moral conscience trumped his October rationalizations on Election Day 2012.
Both your question and your suggestion make sense. Thanks for them.
No individual has the power to kill an idea. I was being purposely provocative. I do think though that our ideas about politics are partially shaped by intellectuals.
As for the link suggestion, I provided the link to Reed’s piece (and would’ve provided the link to the other one if it were available) as a public service. I didn’t do it for the Dyson piece because I’d prefer people find it on their own. Not to make them do more work but rather because I don’t really want to contribute to the click economy.