IF YOU HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO

I have now finished reading my 1989 Amherst talk onto my computer, courtesy of Dragon.  It runs to 8000 words, a trifle much for a blog post, so I shall post it on box.net and give you a taste of it here,  These are the opening two pages:

Ideology and Oppression at Amherst College

By

Robert Paul Wolff

To be delivered at

Amherst College

April 13, 1989

Yesterday evening, Mitch Snyder offered you a religious message of individual redemption and exemplary action, a counsel of withdrawal from the secular world and salvation through faith and works. He spoke in the long Judeo – Christian tradition of prophetic jeremiads and ascetic condemnation of the things of the flesh. You may not have noticed that this was his message, because it was couched in the language of social protest, but a little reflection will show you, I think, that is what it was.

This evening I will offer you a different message – a secular message of social analysis and collective action. You must decide which of these messages, if either, will find a welcome in your hearts and minds.

Those of you who gathered here last night, and have come back tonight, are – if I may just once use a religious rather than a secular metaphor - most likely the saving remnant of the Amherst College community. As is so often the fate of those of us who proclaim a doctrine of social change, I am, I fear, preaching to the converted. Nevertheless, I offer these remarks to you in the hope that they will enlighten you, embolden you, perhaps reassure you in the moral and social conviction that have brought you to this event.

The topic of this five – year series of fora, sponsored by The Student Trustee Advisory Committee On Student Life At Amherst College, is oppression. The specific focus of the second forum in the series is ideological oppression, under the title: Intolerance: The Steamrolling Of Individual Expression.

First things first. There is no oppression at Amherst College. Closemindedness, no doubt. Bigotry, without any question. A studied unwillingness to listen to political, moral, or religious opinions with which one disagrees, most certainly. Why should Amherst College be strikingly different from the rest of the United States, or from the rest of the Pioneer Valley for that matter? But oppression? I think the college security office would not be amused if I were to ask how many students had been tortured or murdered in recent months for their political opinions, how many will be detained without charge in local prisons as a result of their commitment to the elementary forms of democracy.

No doubt, students at Amherst College who hold unpopular opinions risk – unpopularity. Since one’s political and moral beliefs are, in some sense, one’s inner self, one’s truest essence, it is only fitting that young men and women who embrace unpopular positions should be unpopular. There is nothing morally or politically admirable about a Willie Lomanesque desire to be well-liked. Those who have been raised in a world which grades its kindergarten boys and girls on working and playing well with others may perhaps be made nervous by the prospect of being rejected by their playmates – or classmates – merely for the deviance of their politics, despite their nice manners and an endless willingness to be accommodating. Nevertheless, as I shall suggest presently, an easy, comfortable, tolerant aura of good feeling is almost certainly the social manifestation of ideological distortion and concealment. Beware the siren lure of popularity!

It is I suppose conceivable that students at Amherst College have received lower grades for taking the position in an examination or term essay different from that held by the professor. I tend to doubt that such violations of elementary academic freedom happen often. In my experience, professors are so delighted to come across a student who has strong, individually arrived at opinions, however unpopular – indeed however absurd – that they tend to grade higher than the objective merit of the student's work warrants out of sheer gratitude.

Nevertheless, something must be afoot. The student committee organizing this affair says, in its letter of invitation to me:

“We believe that the ideological conformity we want to uncover is fundamental to systems of oppression. Conversely, it’s unmasking is crucial to the understanding and hence the breakdown of oppression. Ideological conformity represses individualism and stymies self – examination. It breeds complacency and self – deception. If we are to work towards eliminating oppression we must understand its many guises and tools when we lock ourselves into one system of ideas. When one pervasive ideology takes hold of us – a lot of us – we surrender individuality, the questioning that is crucial to maintaining freedom and fairness.”

They go on:

“Amherst College is dominated by a mainstream that sees itself as liberal. However, this belief has become an oppressive attitude. Somehow, the naming has become the end. So – called liberalism does not function past its name, as evidenced by the mainstream’s denial of the legitimacy of alternative systems of belief. This is largely manifested in student social life, but we believe that, to some extent, it has its roots in the classroom.”

These words are assuredly well meant – the product of an earnest and wholly admirable desire to think more independently. What is more, I detect in them, or at least hope that I detect, a desire to move to the left, a desire that is always and everywhere to be encouraged whenever it manifests itself. But these words, and the mindset they exemplify, require some criticism and examination, before we can actually begin the process they call for. In fact, they express a view of the relationship between thought and reality which is, in my judgment, almost the exact opposite of the truth. So, if you will bear with me, I shall attempt a few moments of textual criticism, as a preface to the body of my remarks.