The shape of the pegs and holes never really matters; Marxism is a sledgehammer and when a wielder like Popowich wants something to fit in the round hole....WHAM! WHAM! WHAM!...there. You're proletarianized. And, of course, an attack on intellectual freedom is par for the course.
This well-researched rejoinder is so valuable: many thanks for putting in the work! Watching academics (and apparently librarians) larp about their solidarity with the working class is one part trainwreck (horrible horrible) to one part slapstick (ludicrous ludicrous). That all of their most cherished shibboleths and jargon ("transmisia" good googeldy mooks) are fully and ferociously backed by late modern capitalist imperialism (Target's "progress flag" product lines; Army recruitment ad featuring a drag queen) gives them no pause atall.
"To think that any prosperous society could figure out how to meet the material needs of its citizens without relatively open inquiry and debate strains credulity." I agree with this. We need open inquiry and debate. Whether or not we currently have it is a different question. I talked with a recently graduate who has minored in Gender Studies and asked her if she believed everything she was taught. The answer was no, but she now knew what to admit to in public.
Good discussion (and thank you for pointing to that Academe issue on librarianship). I get nervous whenever I'm told that something else needs to be done "first" before freedom of expression can be allowed. If we give someone else the power to make our society safe for free speech, it is unlikely that we'll ever get our freedom back from them.
I agree that it is hard to enjoy intellectual freedom if you lack a minimum standard of material welfare -- a homeless person needs shelter more urgently than they need a library card (of course, they really deserve both). But the non sequitur comes when someone goes from saying "intellectual freedom is a poor substitute for bread" to saying "intellectual freedom is an obstacle to achieving economic justice." It just doesn't follow that suppressing free expression is necessary to improve the material welfare of the poor and oppressed.
Of course, arguments can be made in favor of that position. Many have claimed that democracy is is ineffective b/c it it gives too much power to the ignorant masses to disrupt the plans of the enlightened minority. But if Popowich really has lost faith in liberal democracy and wants to hand power to his friends in the intellectual vanguard to fix things for the rest of us, why not just say so? Why pretend to be an advocate for some alternate form of freedom and democracy?
The shape of the pegs and holes never really matters; Marxism is a sledgehammer and when a wielder like Popowich wants something to fit in the round hole....WHAM! WHAM! WHAM!...there. You're proletarianized. And, of course, an attack on intellectual freedom is par for the course.
This well-researched rejoinder is so valuable: many thanks for putting in the work! Watching academics (and apparently librarians) larp about their solidarity with the working class is one part trainwreck (horrible horrible) to one part slapstick (ludicrous ludicrous). That all of their most cherished shibboleths and jargon ("transmisia" good googeldy mooks) are fully and ferociously backed by late modern capitalist imperialism (Target's "progress flag" product lines; Army recruitment ad featuring a drag queen) gives them no pause atall.
"To think that any prosperous society could figure out how to meet the material needs of its citizens without relatively open inquiry and debate strains credulity." I agree with this. We need open inquiry and debate. Whether or not we currently have it is a different question. I talked with a recently graduate who has minored in Gender Studies and asked her if she believed everything she was taught. The answer was no, but she now knew what to admit to in public.
Public Library Inquiry-Robert Leigh on library faith I think predates the vocational awe concept but should also be considered.
Inquiry as Ideology: The Politics of the Public Library Inquiry
Douglas Raber
Libraries & Culture
Vol. 29, No. 1, The Public Library Inquiry: Reminiscences, Reflections, and Research (Winter, 1994), pp. 49-60.
Good discussion (and thank you for pointing to that Academe issue on librarianship). I get nervous whenever I'm told that something else needs to be done "first" before freedom of expression can be allowed. If we give someone else the power to make our society safe for free speech, it is unlikely that we'll ever get our freedom back from them.
I agree that it is hard to enjoy intellectual freedom if you lack a minimum standard of material welfare -- a homeless person needs shelter more urgently than they need a library card (of course, they really deserve both). But the non sequitur comes when someone goes from saying "intellectual freedom is a poor substitute for bread" to saying "intellectual freedom is an obstacle to achieving economic justice." It just doesn't follow that suppressing free expression is necessary to improve the material welfare of the poor and oppressed.
Of course, arguments can be made in favor of that position. Many have claimed that democracy is is ineffective b/c it it gives too much power to the ignorant masses to disrupt the plans of the enlightened minority. But if Popowich really has lost faith in liberal democracy and wants to hand power to his friends in the intellectual vanguard to fix things for the rest of us, why not just say so? Why pretend to be an advocate for some alternate form of freedom and democracy?